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-Thread: 103376,243dc2fb696a49cd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!diablo.voicenet.com!199.184.165.233.MISMATCH!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Popularity: Comparison of Ada/Charles with C++ STL (and Perl) References: <11b4d.3849$d5.30042@newsb.telia.net> From: jayessay Organization: Tangible Date: 27 Sep 2004 10:45:47 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: DXC=T<3A`hSbbYDLG\V Georg Bauhaus writes: > jayessay wrote: > > : I don't think this thread "proves" anything. Also there is nothing in > : this thread to indicate in any sense that an "overiding concern for > : safety" should make code longer. Certainly there is nothing in any of > : the Ada given that is more checked or "safe" than in the Lisp examples. > > I also don't think that this thread "proves" anything. Certainly it > doesn't "prove" that static type checking doesn't add to safety. Nor that it does. /Jon -- 'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com