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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,aec2c5631508f2aa
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Steve Sivulka <steve@thomsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Ada Windows compilers
Date: 1995/04/07
Message-ID: <D6oqI7.ACJ@thomsoft.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100070409
sender: news@thomsoft.com (USENET News Admin @flash)
x-nntp-posting-host: fishpan
references: <3lrvub$np7@booz.bah.com>
organization: Thomson Software Products, San Diego, CA, USA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

casioa@bah.com wrote:
>
> 
> I used Aetech's Integrada for windows last year and was not impressed; it was 
> buggy and just didn't work very well. I have long used Alsys' PC Ada compilers 
> and am wondering if their ActivAda is just a re-packaged Integrada, or is it 
> indeed as robust as their PC compilers? 
> 
> Also, I would welcome any critical feedback on other Ada windows compilers. 
> I've tried Meridian's and didn't like it either.


Integrada, from the late Aetech, was wrapped around R & R's compiler. 

ActivAda uses Alsys' enhanced compiler technology.

It's hard to compare apples to diamonds, but I won't comment any more
because my critical feedback might be slightly tanted by the fact 
that I work for Thomson Software Products.