"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0310181737.5e370815@posting.google.com...

> Oh, I see. So efficiency is no longer an issue. Well, excuse me, but I
> think we'd be better off leaving that judgment to each application
> developer. Controlling a building temperature is one thing, but
> delivering a cruise missile to Saddam Hussein's front door is quite
> another.

*** I'm not one to dispute usually.  But this += thread is getting pathetic
from the likes of you.  Oh and By the way, Pascal may not have +=, it has
Inc and Dec who's resulting compiled code is as efficient as C's +=.  Don't
believe me? Do some benchmarks.
>
> Do you have any idea whatsoever how much computation is potentially
> involved in computing optimal conflict-free trajectories for thousands
> of airplanes? Here's a suggestion: if you don't know WTF you are
> talking about, STFU.
>
*** Hmmm you don't know who you're talking to do you?  Marin can probably
run circles around you while computing the circle's trajectory around you?
No he didn't invent them, but he sure can use them :-).   However, I find
quite primitive a mind one that resolves to insults and STFU's instead of
bringing real arguments about real issues that really need resolving.  If
YOU run out of things to say, just say so, what's this attitude about not
admitting that you're out of arguments?

>
> Oh, isn't that wonderful. Pascal, Fortran, and Ada. Did you contribute
> your "wisdom" to the demise of Pascal and Fortran too? I guess you're
> going for the trifecta with Ada, eh? Ever heard of "three strikes and
> you're out"?

*** Like chris said I should email Borland and let them know that their
technology of the future has been dead for 5 years?  Now why do you think
that Borland, among others have a C++ and a Pascal Compiler, they dont both
have the += operator set and yet both are popular enough?  Do you bother
looking at market shares before saying foolish things?

>
>
> Oh, so let's neglect the little things and focus on the big things.
> Here's a little piece of wisdom for you: if you don't bother getting
> the little things right, you probably won't get the big things right
> either.

*** well most scientist wouldn't agree with you since they all try to grasp
the most complicated aspect of a subject and often fail to grasp the obvious
;-).  To me, I don't care too much about the += issue.  Like Marin said
there's ways around it which means that it's not a "critical" issue.

Here's my critical issue, why are people like you wasting people's time.
People that actually aim to make Ada better than it already is right now
(which is already much better than any dialect of C or C++).  Ada isn't a
library for C++ Russ it has no standard definitions that tells Ada compilers
to abide by C/C++ standards. So C/C++ have the +=, good for them,
ObjectPascal doesn't (but there's ways around it). Ada Doesn't but there's
ways around it.  As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of this discussion.
+- os a question of Taste, not a question of performance as it can be
achieved otherwise.


-- 
St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com