Re: Re=Fun_with_History why_wasnt_Ada83_object_oriented

[Gautier write-only <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com>]

On 24 fév, 22:32, tmo...@acm.org wrote:
> >  The obvious repercussion of this is that there weren't any cheap
> >  compilers (say, in the US$50 - US$100 range) that you could run on
> >  your PC at home, so no one could experiment with the language.  Ada
> >  essentially missed the boat in the PC revolution, and so was never
>
>   The obvious lesson here is that advertising is supreme.  There was
> in fact a $100 Ada that ran on DOS machines - I know because I bought
> it to try out this new language named Ada.  I think the ad I saw was in
> Byte magazine, but it surely wasn't as much press as Lotus or Ovation(?)
> the never-did-exist system described in a cover article.

Advertising is an important component, but not all.
For instance mouth-to-ear (and black copies on diskettes...)
contributed to the success of some compilers.
The quality of the product is also primordial.
The success of Turbo Pascal was due to a genial idea that the need of
most programmers are not much having a compiler but having a full
development tool focused on a quick development cycle. They offered:
1) an integrated editor
2) a fast native-code compiler (at the expense of compiled code
quality, but nobody cared)
Not sure if any Ada compiler - cheap or not - in the whole 80's was
able to do that.
_________________________
Gautier's Ada programming
http://sf.net/users/gdemont