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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,db8388c6b42d398 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: anon@anon.org (anon) Subject: Re: How do I go about creating a minimal GNAT runtime? Reply-To: no to spamers (No@email.given.org) References: <512c4474-98d3-4c5f-8d08-70b5b40d09e1@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com> X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Message-ID: <_yjrl.45470$4m1.38510@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:03:06 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.64.204.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1236124986 12.64.204.36 (Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:03:06 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:03:06 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4880 Date: 2009-03-04T00:03:06+00:00 List-Id: You better go back to school. Two guys at AT&T used C to create that OS, but AT&T or those guys had no claim to C. C came from BCPL and BCPL came from B which inturn come from language A. Now, BCPL was design to build compilers not OS. C extented that concept to a general purpose language, so C was NEVER designed for or by AT&T to created AT&T OS. And now some say that C++ which extents C has been replaced by D. But that not for this newsgroup. In <512c4474-98d3-4c5f-8d08-70b5b40d09e1@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, lucretia writes: >On Mar 3, 2:00=A0am, a...@anon.org (anon) wrote: > >> All high-level languages like "C", Java" and even "Lisp" were never > >You are joking right? C was designed to specifically to write Unix in. > >BTW, I'd really wish yo signed your posts so we knew who the hell >we're talking to, rather than "anon" > >Luke.