Ada subset -- why not?

[vijay@nawc690.chinalake.navy.mil (Jim Vijay)]

Given:
 1. The vast majority of programming in the real world is non-real-time.
 2. Compilers with full-blown real-time support are more expensive - in money,
    and user resources.
 3. Ada (83 & 95) is cleanly separable syntactically into non-real-time and
    real-time subsets.
 4. A non-real-time subset would introduce most of the software engineering
    concepts/benefits of Ada and thus promote the usage of the real Ada.

If these statements are true, why is there not an Ada-lite on the market?
Does the Ada JPO have specific reasons to prevent such a subset language?
Can they legally prevent someone from marketing such a language?
Has anyone tried?  One would think it would be possible for Borland (say)
to upgrade their Object Pascal to Ada-lite 95.  Think of the marketing
edge they would have trumpeting its OO, safety, reliability, LOW PRICE,
GREAT PERFORMANCE, AND UPWARDS COMPATIBILITY etc.  If it takes off, they
could later add the real-time portion, possibly as an option.

I know that a free GNAT exists.  But a market driven solution would be
more attractive - even if its (initially) a lite solution.

-- Jim Vijay

This message is mine - that is to say it belongs to me. (only)