Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "C" vrs ADA
Message-ID: <6323@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 22-Aug-87 14:47:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6323
Posted: Sat Aug 22 14:47:08 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Aug-87 13:10:45 EDT
References: <1065@vu-vlsi.UUCP> <253@etn-rad.UUCP> <1146@watmum.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Distribution: na
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 24

In article <1146@watmum.waterloo.edu> smvorkoetter@watmum.waterloo.edu (Stefan M. Vorkoetter) writes:
>Beats PL/I though.

The one thing everybody seems to agree on!

>The problem with Ada (as with PL/I) is that it is so big, it is hard to
>ensure that one's compiler is reliable.

Size has little to do with this.  As the people from Metaware would
probably tell you, what is necessary is a formal semantic specification
against which the implementation may be gauged.

>But, do you really want a career in military programming?  Writing
>programs to kill people just doesn't sound like a good idea?

Most programming for the military has nothing to do with killing.
There are also many people who have no problem with the notion of
killing under certain circumstances (for example, in self-defense).
The moral and ethical issues certainly need consideration, but each
individual should make his own determination.  In my case, for
example, I'm sure that my efforts for the military have not added
to the expected total number of people killed in the future, and may
have reduced the expected number.  (A truly viable defense would do
that.)