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,f05f6c2ca4c91ddd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ralph Paul <paul@tornado.aem.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: long term viability of Ada
Date: 1996/09/25
Message-ID: <yukohiu3b0f.fsf@tornado.aem.umn.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 185261249
references: <324219D1.15FFEF33@bright.net>
organization: University of Minnesota
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Dave Wood <dpw@thomsoft.com> writes:

[ snip ]
> In fact, we've noted an increasing trend in people looking to move
> *from* C++ *to* Ada 95.  Right now, I would consider this to be
> essentially anecdotal because at this point only a few true Ada 95
> compilers have hit the market.  An evaluation at this time next 
> year would provide a much more reliable barometer of the long-term
> prospects for Ada, in my opinion, both because there will be more
> Ada 95 compilers available, and because the ones currently 
> available will have been around longer.

In fact I have seen a comment on comp.lang.modula2 that Stoney Brook
( spelling ?) is also developping their own new Ada95 compiler.
( They do/did have a fairly popular Modula-2 compiler for PC's. )
     
I think this goes to show that other companies then the traditional 
Ada supporters are really looking into Ada95 and see it as a good 
( maybe even better ) alternative to the current standards ( C/C++, ...)

I hope that this will become a trend not just for Windows but also for
other ( OS/2, Be ) systems (:-).
 
CU,

Ralph Paul

	paul@aem.umn.edu
or	ralph@ifr.luftahrt.uni-stuttgart.de