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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,84bf0ec36cf20893 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-15 07:28:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!128.39.3.168!uninett.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail From: Preben Randhol Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea? Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:28:19 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology Message-ID: References: <5ee5b646.0205140618.2d789fc9@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1021472899 23803 129.241.83.78 (15 May 2002 14:28:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:28:19 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24096 Date: 2002-05-15T14:28:19+00:00 List-Id: On Wed, 15 May 2002 12:56:39 GMT, Steve Doiel wrote: > "Robert Dewar" wrote in message > news:5ee5b646.0205140618.2d789fc9@posting.google.com... > [snip] >> >> At ACT we use (full) Ada as a scripting language all the time. The ^^^^ > Your definition of "scripting language" is certainly different from mine. I > did a google search to find a definition and found: > http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/glossary/scripting.html > which is consistant with how I would describe a scripting language. > > While I agree that anything that may be done with a scripting language may > also be done with a general purpose compiled language, IMHO they are not the > same thing. I don't think he said that either. Preben