Content deleted Content added
→is is needed at all: typo |
→Moved from article: Answer |
||
Line 293:
Wikipedia is not a place for folks with an axe to grind. Rather than complain about how "they" say "this" about Ada and then "something happens", provide a valid explanation of what the language spec provides and how it fails to meet the objectives. A legitimate explanation of the features and deficiencies will provide value to the article. However, the above section that I removed just downgrades the quality of the article without making any sense to an uninformed reader.[[User:Michael Daly|Michael Daly]] 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
: Of course you are right. You see for us Ada advocates it is a very touchy part. Ada haters blame Ada for the failure - and they do so loudly. There argument is that Ada did not meet it's objective. Even you ask ''"how it fails to meet the objectives"'' - but that is the point: Ada never failed it's objective. The Ariane 5 management failed its objective and where probably looking for a [[Scapegoat]]. If runtime checks are explicitly switched off as part of a design decision then it's not the fault of the language. Actually the chapter should have been == Unfair Criticism == - but wikipedia does not normally carry such chapters. I sitting here and I am don't know what to do. Leave it deleted, was not a very good chapter really. Or is the [[Fear, uncertainty and doubt|FUD]] so widespread that it is of encyclopaedic value after all? Honestly I am torn here. --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]] <sup>[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]</sup> 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
== Pronunciation of Ada ==
| |||