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: 103376,60e2922351e0e780
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-11 11:43:19 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Clause "with and use"
Date: 11 Nov 2003 11:43:18 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0311111143.2c9404f@posting.google.com>
References: <3FA2CDCB.500F4AF0@fakeaddress.nil>
 <3FAAB12E.C7593B45@fakeaddress.nil>
 <slrnbqmn3k.pk.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3FACCBFB.9D288CF2@fakeaddress.nil>
 <bebbba07.0311081140.e0e94e6@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbqug4j.ss.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3FAF8C99.5040201@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0311102320.7fba665a@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbr16ek.1qo.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1068579798 28442 127.0.0.1 (11 Nov 2003 19:43:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:43:18 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2368
Date: 2003-11-11T11:43:18-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbr16ek.1qo.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>...
> On 2003-11-11, Russ <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> > If the choice of programming languages in the real world were based
> > strictly on objective, rational considerations by language experts,
> > than what you say might be wise. Unfortunately, that just isn't how
> > the real world works, and I think your advice is extremely unwise.
> 
> So what you are saying is: "C is a very popular language, therefore, we
> must make Ada like C. C is not safe, so Ada shouldn't be either."

If you can derive that from what I wrote above (or from anything I've
ever written on this forum) then it is clear to me that you are
obsessed with jealosy over the popularity of C. I did not even mention
C or language safety. You simply pulled that stuff out of your rear
end.

If you are going to obsess over something, why not make is something
"normal" like sex? Obsessing over the popularity of C is just strange.