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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f868292008c639ce
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: C vs. Ada - strings
Date: 2000/05/02
Message-ID: <OzGh89rR+9iy@eisner.decus.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 618364074
References: <390F0D93.F835FAD9@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 957291665 24466 KILGALLEN [216.44.122.34]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <390F0D93.F835FAD9@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>, Wes Groleau <wwgrol@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> writes:
> 
>> In fact, C-style strings are quite primitive, and quite painful to work
>> with, even compared to Ada 83 strings.
> 
> Two offices adjoining mine are occupied by persons
> fond of saying "Ada strings suck"  Much as I prefer 
> Ada in general, if it weren't for the Ada 95 string
> packages, I'd have to agree with them on this point.

That is the message, of course, from people who insist that
the meaning of "Ada" is now "Ada95" by default --
shortcomings in Ada83 have been recognized and addressed.