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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8623fab5750cd6aa X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrdny01.gnilink.net.POSTED!0e8a908a!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Improving Ada's image - Was: 7E7 Flight Controls Electronics References: <40b9c99e$0$268$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk> <40ba315a$0$254$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk> <04udnR-eHNChzSbdRVn-vw@gbronline.com> <7J0xc.7371$8k4.269106@news20.bellglobal.com> <1086630278.542788@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <8xlxc.27603$sS2.845496@news20.bellglobal.com> <1086715817.122983@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1086733411.736049@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3Auxc.11998$XY6.1296622@read2.cgocable.net> In-Reply-To: <3Auxc.11998$XY6.1296622@read2.cgocable.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 06:39:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.160.208.46 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1086763192 68.160.208.46 (Wed, 09 Jun 2004 02:39:52 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 02:39:52 EDT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1272 Date: 2004-06-09T06:39:52+00:00 List-Id: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > That is fine except that doesn't say that Ada > couldn't improve upon this, were it put to the test. You still don't understand. The common attitude around here is that people who choose C and C++ are stupid, misguided, and wrong. Look at the current thread on rewriting BIND in Ada - someone asks why, and the response is that the original is written in C, and isn't that enough of a reason? But I have shown you systems written in C and C++ that are responsible for billins in revenue, are used happily and productively by millions of people, that are maintained by widely distributed groups of programmers, and so forth. Why would someone without an axe to grind accept the thesis that there is something so intrinsically bad about those languages that choosing them for a new project is absolutely wrong? > What other choice do people have? Do they get to > choose between Ada and C based operating systems? The fact that no such choices exist invite suspicion that the other languages are unsuitable for creating them. That certainly does not help your case. Try to imagine what your statements look like to an outsider - you are claiming that this vaporware which doesn't exist and probably never will would be much better than existing systems that people are already happy with, if only somebody would write it. > You seem to be saying what we have now > is good enough. Some of us, can't agree. That's fine, but hectoring the rest of us about it isn't going to help you.