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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b50bc6538a649497 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Ada student homework ? Date: 2000/11/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 692051100 References: <3A02CED4.520C2768@brighton.ac.uk> <3A078B6F.D34B024B@erols.com> <8ua3m1$bru$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A0916BB.584C6C60@cadwin.com> <3A0952B9.34BE19D1@cadwin.com> <3A0A682E.7BA4D36B@cadwin.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: sjc-read.news.verio.net 973870087 206.184.139.136 (Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:28:07 GMT) Organization: Verio MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:28:07 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-11-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Good, I'm glad we can behave like professionals, and it restores a bit of my faith in human nature that you apologized. -- Brian On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Nicolas Brunot wrote: > That's right, sorry to have said that. > > I had often the opportunity to 'discuss' with R.Dewar and there is obviously a > very different point of view from people using Ada without having any > responsability in time and costs for develoments, and those who have. > If you have huge freedom in time available and costs, and nothing to report to > anybody about that, and no concerns about making a lot of people going away > from Ada, he is surely a good theory guy. > But if you have to deal with time, costs and efficiency, its way of thinking > leads to disaster. > I mentionned his name because the 'bit manipulation thread' was illustrating > that quite well, and because I think that talking about advertising, it's > important to let people know that a lot of Ada users are strongly against its > unquestionable approach of programming which is absolutely unrealistic > economically speaking. > > That should have been explained without mentioning names. > > Brian Rogoff wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Nicolas Brunot wrote: > > > I personally wouldn't like to ride on an airplane programmed by R.Dewar > > > who would certainly explained he expected the plane to crash because > > > the compiler behaves as he expects ... > > > > It's this kind of post that makes me think this newsgroup is a waste of > > time. Do you so rapidly descend into personal attacks with your colleagues > > at work too? Can I infer from this post that I don't want to use any piece > > of software written by Nicolas Brunot because he's so wrapped up in some > > personal vendetta against Robert Dewar that he obviously can't think > > straight, and goes off posting insults on a technical newsgroup? Are you > > one of those people who thinks nothing of littering or newsgroup spam? > > > > Moderation would make this a better group I think, but as I recall there > > has been little interest in doing it. > > > > -- Brian > >