3 ms·

This two statements seem to contradict each other.

• rbanffy 9y ago
  You'll write different bugs in different languages. You can't leak memory in Java (you can, but it's very hard), for instance, as you can in C. In Python, I often write code that barfs when it gets an object of a wrong type because parameter types are simply not enforced. The bugs I write in Lisp are entirely different from the ones I write in C. We'll always write bugs.
  • nickpsecurity 9y ago
    That's not the point, though. The point is that Ada lets us write without much extra effort: 1. Way fewer bugs in general. 2. Fewer severe bugs that become full-on crashes or hacks. 3. Fewer bugs we cant fail-saif on and/or recover from. Not all bugs are equal by far. Just see Rust's panics vs C's donate-PC-cycles-to-hackers technique.
    • rbanffy 9y ago
      > C's donate-PC-cycles-to-hackers technique. I'll totally use that.
  • kqr 9y ago
    But if we agree that Ada reduces one kind of bug compared to, say, C, then we'd also have to come up with a class of bugs which Ada makes easier to write, in order to say that the number of total bugs stay constant while one kind decreases. I can't come up with such an example. You're right in that things are rarely black and white, but when it comes specifically to bug prevention, I think Ada is a strict improvement over many alternatives.