Why isn't Ada more used? Hell, why aren't you using Ada?

You don't need to work on life-critical systems to appreciate a language that results in clean, readable, maintainable code.

>Not supporting the US military effort in maintaining their nation-wide missile system
>Taking for granted the use of Ada in maintaining every nuclear power facility in the US
>Hurr it's Pasquale
Sure is summer here.

The only language you will ever need?

What's with all the ada shilling lately? Are corporations trying to shill it to make plebs learn it? It would definitely explain all the erlang bullshit lately.

HURR DURR BUT IT DOEDNT LOOK LIKE C HOW DO I PROGRAM IT IF IT DOEDNT LOK LIKE CE AL THE LANGUAGE I KNOW IS LOOK LIKE C THO HURR DURR HEH HEH EHEH LOL WHY DONT YOU JSUT USE JAVA

I haven't seen any Ada shilling, but that might just be me not paying attention.
there's a few languages I kinda wish would get pushed a bit more, like D

Because I don't write shit for avionics or whatever train.

Great book. I love how much he shits on Cniles.

Ads is very nice but that logo is shit. I’ve heard there was something going on with nvidia and Ada for self driving cars or some shit recently makes sense it’s a good fit being a s a f e language and all.

it was extremely shit for 30~ years and almost everyone who knew it died of old age. it's not the most efficient type-safety-guaranteeing lang around, i hear its still pretty sweet on embedded though.

Still used in a ton of legacy US military project

Nope. There is just no real demand.

Military contractors do not even talk to niggers without CS or Math Phds.

You forgot about Modula and Oberon.

I used it for years. Main problem with the language is the lack of community and libraries, but it is and amazing language.
I wish the rush fags would realize it and focus their efforts in improving it, instead of reinventing the wheel

It's probably a counterplay against Rust shills.

It was shit for decades because of terrible compiler support. Note that you still have to pay for GNAT Pro, it's not free, and GNAT Community does not have the license exception that GCC has, even when GNAT uses GCC.

Stick with Rust, kids. Leave Ada to the boomers.

We're on the 2012 release. Get with the times.

Don't use GNAT Community.
Use the FSF's GNAT (which would be provided with your package manager), which does have the exemption.

Getting a new safety feature into Ada would take years and cost tens of millions of dollars because of the language's governance model. And then nobody would even use it, because nobody knew Ada existed.
Think of that other language as a proof of concept for stuff that its creators couldn't afford to get into Ada. Now that the companies that fund Ada have seen demand for a borrow checker, they're putting their own money on the line to get it implemented.

83+30 = 2013, pretty close to correct. Still missing good up to date books.

>GNAT FSF

It's very outdated in comparison to GNAT Community, since nobody cares about it and there's no commercial support. It's the equivalent of still using GCC 4.X today. Also doesn't support SPARK, as `gnatprove` is only available with the GNAT Community package.

Because Lisp exists.

>It's very outdated in comparison to GNAT Community, since nobody cares about it and there's no commercial support. It's the equivalent of still using GCC 4.X today.
if you have a choice between a compiler that forces everything compiled with it to be open source (a limitation that Microsoft wouldn't even stoop down to) which can create a company ruining landmine if you ever become a professional programmer

or using a slightly older version of a compiler

the choice is not a hard one

But I am. It already deprecated C decades ago.

I like Lisp, but this is frankly a stupid answer.

You're right. Every sensible person would choose the former.

Retard logo

>if you have a choice between a compiler that forces everything compiled with it to be open source
You're only obligated to give the source to people who use the software. If it's internal to your company no one ever has to see the source outside. This is only a problem for people trying to distribute to the public and make money.

>Getting a new safety feature into Ada would take years and cost tens of millions of dollars because of the language's governance model.
The committee is very open if you submit your request during the request window. Ada is supposed to be a stable language, unlike Rust. It can't just change week to week.
>Now that the companies that fund Ada have seen demand for a borrow checker, they're putting their own money on the line to get it implemented.
What a disaster that would be to force a borrow checker on Ada users. You might as well use Rust at that point. Luckily It's not part of Ada 202x.

>Main problem with the language is the lack of community and libraries
This. The few locations people do hang out at are painfully slow, and the library support overall is disappointing. Except to have to make your own thin or thick bindings for most things.

Programming langiages have been reinventing the wheel since the 70s.
Apart from strong, statically typed ML-derived functional languages such as Haskell, or something like Erlang, there hasn't really been a real innovation in programming languages for the past 40 years.
In a sane field, people would remember history and build upon it. But no, software has been falling for memes for decades.

>You're only obligated to give the source to people who use the software. If it's internal to your company no one ever has to see the source outside. This is only a problem for people trying to distribute to the public and make money.
This, this is what many people don't realize about free software.
You're never required to *publish* the source for all to see, every time. Most of the software created by companies which is only used internally does qualify as FOSS, as every person using it has access to the basic freedoms.

Why would I use Ada when I could use Rust instead? Still secure, but also a delight to program in.

If making a language had a barrier of entry we might see some improvement, but as it is every CS grad will likely have made a compiler for a pretend language during college and some of those people go off to make their own brain child that just populate the language space.

>This is only a problem for people trying to distribute to the public and make money.
right, so if you plan to be a NEET, you're A-OK for using this compiler

Only if you want something Ada has that Rust doesn't. Like design by contracts? I don't think Rust has that right? The exception handling mech i believe is different too, and the "tasking" system is definitely not common place. It's quite an oddity coming from languages where you manually make threads and what not.

I think people who don't know Ada would probably be more interested in SPARK than Ada just because you can use it and prove your code works.

>Still secure
>comparing rust with Ada security-wise

You dont know what you're speaking about

Alternatively you make your business about selling support/services and not sales. That's how Adacore mostly functions outside of a few of their products. One example is GNAT Coverage. The source is out on github, but if you want Adacore's support or help you'll have to pay.

>Alternatively you make your business about selling support/services and not sales.
AdaCore should take their own advice, their compilers are open source, they release a community version of their compiler, so putting a open source landmine license just to use a gimped version of their pro compiler makes no sense

Can you define your own integer ranges (i.e. type Angle is range -35 .. 35;) as specialized data (sub)types in Rust and have automatic runtime checking of those bounds during runtime?

You can also define embedded operations within a type, for example, a struct with a bool flag that switches, atomically, when a other variables of the struct meet a certain condition.
And if you want you mind blown take a look at the metric types and type inference (for example, m / s, etc...) I work in aerospace and you would be amazed at the amount of mistakes in between variables just because the magnitude is similar