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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Java vs Ada 95 (Was Re: Once again,
 Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation)
Date: 1996/10/11
Message-ID: <dewar.845088498@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 188912839
references: <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com>
 <Dz2B9H.9HD.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <ROGOFF.96Oct10095045@sccm.Stanford.EDU> <325D7F9B.2A8B@gte.net>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Garbage collection, by itself, is significant enough for one to
seriously consider choosing Java over Ada for projects which do not
require low-level timing control.
"

Nope, that does not make any sense. Any project for which Java is currently
suitable could equally well be done in Ada using the Intermetrics compiler
to JBC, which has identical garbage collection capability.