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,a3c78c7d84418222
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Garbage Collection vs. the DSA
Date: 1996/10/23
Message-ID: <dewar.846048897@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 191448708
references: <9610211437.AA06861@most> <JSA.96Oct22154903@alexandria>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


The point is, if the DSA had not been in the RM, ACT would not have a
DSA and so they would not have those $$ coming from attacted _new_ Ada
users.

  I have no idea what you are talking about, we implement many things, some
  in the RM (like DSA) others not (like all the DEC extended import export
  pragmas), and the choice is based on customer demand!

That's the "too in-bred team" problem already mentioned.

  How do you know? This seems to be an argument that goes like this.

   I am right, I know I am.
   Community X seems to disagree with me!
   Therefore community X must be too inbred.

  There is another conclusion from these premises!