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: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-28 13:25:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: xanthian@well.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP Date: 28 Apr 2003 13:25:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <9fa75d42.0304240503.54dbc5d1@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304240953.221ac70f@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304250448.5107afef@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304252116.621a4bf4@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304260649.366530c5@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304280451.34afff75@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.8.249.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051561506 15349 127.0.0.1 (28 Apr 2003 20:25:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Apr 2003 20:25:06 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62848 comp.object:62224 comp.lang.ada:36703 misc.misc:13784 Date: 2003-04-28T20:25:06+00:00 List-Id: softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng) wrote: > xanthian@well.com (Kent Paul Dolan) wrote: >> softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng) wrote: >>> No, I am serious. >> How sad for you then. >>> Many people who use computers today, simply wouldn't have been >>> able to, 20 years ago. That's progress, exc[ep]t if you have >>> a personal reason to say "no, it's not.". >> Except that you are revising history beyond recognition: the >> vi() editor was written for the use of secretaries, and it is > And you are accusing me of revising history! > When vi was the standard editor and unix was > the standard workstation, there was a thriving market > for specialized secretary-machines. So? It is still the case that your paragraph to which I disagreed is plain wrong, and for the reasons I said: computers usable by low skilled clerical employees have been the norm since the earliest commercial computers: the IBM 1620 on which I programmer in 1961 was primarily used by office staff, not programmers; so there isn't some large class of people who have suddenly become capable of using computers in the past 20 years that were not capable of so doing before, invaliating your claim. Please attempt to use sane methods of argumentation; this kind is tedious, as you continue to trim away material which counters the points you then insist on making incorrectly again and again. xanthian. There is a small class, however; computers catering especially to the severely handicapped have probably mostly appeared in the last 20 years.