Agreed on this. Ada has many solutions that I wish I had access to in C and C++. In regards to efficiency, Ada as a language can be optimized to a greater exte

Agreed on this. Ada has many solutions that I wish I had access to in C and C++. In regards to efficiency, Ada as a language can be optimized to a greater extent than C/C++. It avoids the aliasing problem all together, ALIASED is a keyword in Ada that must be explicitly used, by default the compiler prevents aliasing! Everything else in the language is very unambiguous, a lot of checks are done at compile time, and if needed for performance, run time checks can be turned off on a selective basis. Combined with the optional but enabled by default since-you-are-going-to-write-them-anyone bounds checking on parameters, and a type/subtype system that lets me ACTUALLY DEFINE the ranges of every parameter going in and out of my function calls, well, whenever I look at a bug fix, I do a mental check of "would this even be possible to do wrong in Ada?" and for about 30% of bugs, I'd say no. Ada's main disadvantage from an embedded point of view is the hoops it makes people go through to do bit manipulation. It is understandable why, bit manipulation breaks the entire type system in every possible way, but a lot of embedded development requires it. At some point it'd be nice if the language had a keyword that just said "this variable can be abused, let it live dangerously." It also has proper tagged types and built in syntax for circular arrays. Two bits of code I am sick and tired of writing again and again in C, and then having to explain to people what a tagged type is. Ada's main flaw is that it doesn't look like C.