TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:41:58 -0800
Reply-To: Al Christians <[log in to unmask]>
From: Al Christians <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Trillium Resources Corporation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (21 lines)
Michael Feldman wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I think you are misrepresenting Borland's actions.  "Don't even care" is
a little strong.  They did include a section in their manual that listed
the differences between their dialect and the standard.


Al

ATOM RSS1 RSS2