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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews2.google.com!not-for-mail
From: kevin.cline@gmail.com (Kevin Cline)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request
Date: 26 Aug 2004 13:42:32 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <e749549b.0408261242.71729605@posting.google.com>
References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com>
 <b47de02.0408161309.151f6a53@posting.google.com>
 <e749549b.0408171554.2f9c48b4@posting.google.com>
 <TqxUc.26181$9Y6.25639@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <e749549b.0408200838.43e841d@posting.google.com>
 <4CsVc.28876$9Y6.4063@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 170.215.188.12
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1093552952 11213 127.0.0.1 (26 Aug 2004 20:42:32
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:42:32 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3049
Date: 2004-08-26T13:42:32-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:<4CsVc.28876$9Y6.4063@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Kevin Cline wrote:
> 
> > I think the very existence of limited types is a fundamental flaw in
> > Ada.
> 
> The ability to create types for which there are no operations except 
> those defined by the developer is essential for creating useful 
> abstractions. Since the creation of useful abstractions is the hallmark 
> of software engineering, it is not surprising that Ada is the language 
> of choice for the 2% of developers who are software engineers, and 
> disliked by the 98% who are coders and should not be allowed to design 
> software of any importance.

It's unfortunate to see this circular ad-hominem argument is repeated
over and over again in this newsgroup.  "I am a good programmer.  I
like Ada.  Therefore all good programmers should like Ada. 
Programmers who don't like Ada must be poor programmers."  And even
the first assertion is doubtful.

No progress can come from this argument.  Better to notice that a lot
of very good programmers have rejected Ada, and figure out why.