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,dd4586b9dd51c602
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: general-purpose vs. domain-specific programming languages
Date: 1998/01/10
Message-ID: <dewar.884411841@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 314560314
References: <98010512040396@psavax.pwfl.com> <692v45$cpi@top.mitre.org>
 <69560j$kqf@drn.zippo.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 884411931 7790 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-01-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Nasser says

<<Why is it only around Ada language folks that I keep hearing about this
DOS thing?
who cares about DOS? DOS is dead, lets get on with it, dealing with
anything to do with DOS is a waste of time. does anybody actually develop
for DOS nowadays? if someone does not have $100 to buy a modern OS to work
on, then they don't need the software anyways, and they don't need Ada either.
>>

Listen more carefully, you don't hear the "Ada language folks" talking
about the importance of DOS, you hear a very small (but quite insistent)
minority. It is clear to me that the majority of the Ada community
agrees with your (perfectly reasonable) observation above!