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!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!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: <e749549b.0409211621.6f3d3723@posting.google.com>
 <11b4d.3849$d5.30042@newsb.telia.net>
 <e749549b.0409230051.4fe019a5@posting.google.com>
 <sa4ekks60xf.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au> <mOednXIrZJxIBM7cRVn-uQ@megapath.net>
From: jayessay <nospam@foo.com>
Organization: Tangible
Date: 26 Sep 2004 13:10:35 -0400
Message-ID: <m3oejt552s.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
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=lPAjYENDk1>9k<8U2i:0S80R]m=BkYWI7:6bU3OT9S9:TmMhfhH<Ki<^aM2i8keRm=gYK`n>m?G7>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4220
Date: 2004-09-26T13:10:35-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> As far as I can tell, all this thread proves is that it would be nice if Ada
> allowed redefinition of some of the operations (as opposed to operators)
> like "in" and "()". And that the overriding concern for safety in Ada makes
> code a bit longer.

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.


/Jon

-- 
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com