From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d89b08801f2aacae
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-02 08:20:46 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost?
Date: 2 May 2002 10:20:22 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <NqZT8Z7VluM1@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <Xns91FEB85DCA09Cderekknosofcouk@62.253.162.108>
 <4519e058.0204290722.2189008@posting.google.com>
 <Xns91FFC7B971B88derekknosofcouk@194.168.222.64>
 <3CCE8523.6F2E721C@earthlink.net>
 <Xns9200929868B11derekknosofcouk@62.253.162.107>
 <aamiqj$30ce$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <3CCED46D.43145174@san.rr.com>
 <aamu42$bc8$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <aamvjg$i5t$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <3CD12A77.5C48FD2F@earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1020352824 17921 192.135.80.34 (2 May 2002
 15:20:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:20:24 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23411
Date: 2002-05-02T10:20:22-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3CD12A77.5C48FD2F@earthlink.net>, "Marc A. Criley" <mcqada95@earthlink.net> writes:

> I often see this assertion, that when it comes to quick-and-dirty, one
> shot programs, there are arguably better choices than Ada.
> 
> But I write one shot programs all the time, and while I'm less rigourous
> in the typing of the variables that are used (predominantly Integer,
> Natural, Float, and Unbounded_String), I can hardly envision things
> going any faster using C, Perl, etc.

Likewise for me.

> Maybe it's just due to the nature of the q&d programs I typically need
> to write.

I think the best language for quick and dirty programs is the one known
best by the programmer.