3 ms·
Ada isn't actually particularly safe in any reasonable sense - or rather, it provides enough escape hatches with little obvious marking that it's costly (in ter
by vertex-four 10y ago
Ada isn't actually particularly safe in any reasonable sense - or rather, it provides enough escape hatches with little obvious marking that it's costly (in terms of time spent in code review) to ensure safety. Safety of existing Ada programs is primarily a result of the engineering practices that went into them, more than the language itself.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoNonsense. The designer looked at almost every spot where coding mistakes were leading to crashes or corruption. Then, made those safe-by-default wherever possible. They're described in modern form in the book below by Barnes. The effect was confirmed when defects dropped to around half what Mitre et al had been observing on C projects. There was only one case study I saw where Ada made no difference whose control group was C++. An anomaly that might have been same system reimplemented by same people, easily-correct system, or just both super-talented. So, it is a safe language with only exception being temporal safety w/out a GC. Rust delivers on that. http://www.adacore.com/uploads_gems/Ada_Safe_and_Secure_Booklet.pdf http://www.adacore.com/uploads_gems/Ada_Safe_and_Secure_Book... Also, SPARK Ada can straight-up prove common errors don't exist in that code with an automated prover. Most engineers would spend quite a bit of time doing that with pencil-and-paper examination or human-driven provers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_(programming_language)