Ada v Rust

Why does Rust exist when Ada did most of what the language provides decades ago and has been tested in industry?
Why would any project use Rust over Ada/Spark?

Attached: AdaBirb.png (800x868, 149K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Installing#GCC
groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.ada/cPsKwgiuO-w[1-25]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_handling?wprov=sfla1
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Why would any project use Rust over Ada/Spark?
Because Rust isn't supposed to be a good language, it's literally reinvented sepples.

Because not everything is an embedded component.

then why C++ lacks most of Rust's features or implements them extremely poorly with runtime overhead?

Ada. Because planes that use only Ada don't do unfixable trim down.

discorde trannies

Serious answer time.

Reason 1: Rust is free to use and free to learn. The compiler is open source under a permissive license, the reference documentation is free and complete (with good explanations and lots of examples) and there are loads of tutorials, also free. Ada has one open source implementation available under the scary viral GPL (extending to any software you make with it!) and most of the documentation out there consists of textbooks that cost a bunch of money or are totally out of print. The Ada guys are making an effort to fix this, but they're taking their sweet time, and meanwhile Rust is capturing a lot of market share.

Reason 2: Rust's safety features were designed in response to problems in 2005 onward. Ada was designed in response to problems in the 70s and 80s (most of which are solved problems) and in relative ignorance of some of the issues the Rust designers considered a priority. Some of this was fixed by SPARK, but there are still oversights that give Ada a black eye. I have no idea if future Ada standards will incorporate new safety features to help it compete with Rust.

Reason 3: Rust went balls to the wall marketing its safety features to the entire software industry. Ada has hardly been marketed at all since about 1990. The Ada community secured its niche in the aerospace industry and was totally complacent to never expand beyond it, at least until Rust made everybody shit their pants. This seems to be changing too. It's obviously the reason you made this thread.

Doesn't GCC have support for Ada? If so, doesn't GCC have an exception in its GPL for not extending to users' programs and generated code?

As far as I know, "GCC support for Ada" is just GNAT, maintained by AdaCore. The version of the Ada standard library they give you is under the regular old GPL. If you want a non-GPL stdlib you're supposed to pay AdaCore for a commercial license.

Just to be extra-clear: The LGPL is the modified GPL that you would normally use for a library, because it makes special exceptions for using code as a library. GNAT's Ada stdlib is under the GPL, not the LGPL, so the usual GPL rules apply.
gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

Attached: gpl_lgpl.png (2364x539, 165K)