Michael Feldman wrote:
> > Would you seriously expect ...
> >the random GE employee making lightbulbs to know how to
> > build jet engines?
> No, but the random GE lightbulber would probably refrain from making
> too many public comments about jet engines, especially if his
> e-mail address said "GE".:-)
> As the old Quaker adage would have it, "speak if you can improve on
However, all fairness aside , the original query was about Ada's
drawbacks, with a side question of why more people don't use Ada.
The flame-victim-to-be answered the side question, by telling what
reasons others had given for not using Ada. It seemed clear (to me
at the time) that he wasn't saying they were all current and true
concerns, just that these reasons had been given at times.
And, he was generally right. Those concerns HAVE been raised. I
thought he improved on silence. Pointing out that they are erroneous
or obsolete concerns was also useful.
But, while the toastee didn't personally endorse those concerns, he
also didn't jump up and down and shout "THEY'RE WRONG, THEY'RE
WRONG, THESE ARE ALL MYTHS." And the main thrust of the original
query was toward Ada's real drawbacks. So some people thought
he was saying they were valid concerns, and real drawbacks.
Unfortunately, the silly comments, the flame target, and some of
the flames got delivered before any substantive replies to the
main query, mostly because it took a while to think those through.
 To quote Steve Allen. Steal from the best.
 To quote Robert Asprin.
Samuel Mize -- [log in to unmask] (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam