From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 25 Oct 91 15:32:03 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!convex!spray@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (Rob Spray) Subject: Re: Why ADA is not prevalent yet? Message-ID: List-Id: 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.