> I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't believe Pascal to be a good
> example of failure in the validation system due to the limited nature of the
> language itself.
Just a clarification: as I recall, the fellow responsible for the Pascal
validation suite made it clear that Borland Pascal failed in the part of
the language that was covered by the standard, not (just) in the extensions.
The main reason I mentioned it at all was to show the connection between
one Borland statement (we won't do Ada because of validation) and
another Borland position (we don;t even care about Pascal validation -
we'll do as we choose).
It's hard to castigate Borland too much - after all, their customers
didn't care. I'm sure that if Borland could've seen a significant
market for a _validated_ Pascal compiler (say, one with a pragma to
let the user specify ISO compliance, as some C compilers do) they
would've built one.
The same goes for an Ada compiler. Businesses go where the money is.