Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura. net!source.asset.com!vand@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Laurence VanDolsen)]

In article <1993May24.181812.5019@hemlock.cray.com> gbt@cray.com (Greg Titus) w
rites:
>
>The point we have been hearing so often in this discussion is that the
>vendors, for whatever reason(s), did not undertake certain strategies
>that would have increased the demand for Ada.  Now it appears that at
>least one of them is attempting to expand into a market that exists
>precisely because some other entity (Bell+Berkeley) did undertake
>those strategies (for UNIX and C).
>
>Oh, the delicious irony of it all!
>
Why is it ironic, or even somehow shameful, that a compiler vendor with a
current specialty in Ada compilers should choose to leverage their
ability by providing compilers for multiple languages?  Nobody seems to
think it shameful that other compiler specialists have concurrent
offerings for C, C++, PASCAL, FORTRAN, etc.  It has even been suggested
by many that the sign of the success of Ada will be when Borland
announces Turbo-Ada.  And when they do, how many flames will erupt over
the fact that they will write it in C++?