Re: Why ADA is not prevalent yet?

[sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!convex!spray@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (Rob Spray)]

In <1991Oct25.003740.6546@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pattis@cs.washington.edu (R
ichard Pattis) writes:


>Borland would write a Turbo-Ada if they thought it were profitable. They may
>be doing so, although I would guess not. Of course, because of Ada's
>standarization, they would have difficulty creating proprietary features
>that would lock users into their system. Maybe becaue of Ada's complexity,
>it wouldn't be so "turbo". 

It has seemed to me that Borland's practise of developing "user-friendly"
products quickly that have only passing familiarity with recognized standards,
has always been at odds with the rigor that validation requires of
an Ada compiler vendor.

I recall that in a speech once, Mr Kahn made a joking reference to Turbo Ada.
I think that cultural environment at Borland makes the production of
Turbo Ada unlikely, but this is just pure speculation on my part.

--Rob Spray
--spray@convex.com

Disclaimer: I'm a Borland Quattro customer, I've helped my son use Turbo
Pascal. CONVEX probably wishes I'd get back to work.