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,b284f3c6f5dea395
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Correction to previous post
Date: 1996/04/04
Message-ID: <dewar.828600513@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 145760549
references: <dewar.828527000@schonberg> <4ju209$mg4@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Mike said (with smiley)

":    ...  I certainly am not aware of any commercial compiler for
: Ada, C++, or even C that has been subjected to complete coverage and
: path testing (including of course use-def path testing, since that i
: is what is involved here).

How can we continue to claim that Ada is a better programming language
than C++, or even C, if we continue to group Ada with these languages
when it is convenient?"

Well of course we are not talking about use f the language here, but
implementation, and I regard the issues of implementing Ada to be similar
to those of implementing C++.