"I would never, ever, use Ada for a non-academic project including those for embedded systems headed to space." "Failure should be expected and using a very st

"I would never, ever, use Ada for a non-academic project including those for embedded systems headed to space." "Failure should be expected and using a very strict language will help, but is ultimately only a crutch. It comes with a lot of cognitive trade offs." The best study I ever saw doing comparisons put Ada at safer and cheaper to use for critical software: http://archive.adaic.com/intro/ada-vs-c/cada_art.pdf http://archive.adaic.com/intro/ada-vs-c/cada_art.pdf SPARK proves absence of certain kinds of problems that even experts run into. You can do that with static analyzers and such on subsets of C. They tend to cost way more than a SPARK Pro license. SPARK the language is also easier to learn than mastering C with all its dark corners. If not proof, they can also do contract-based, test generation and/or fuzzing with contracts as runtime checks. Will knock out tons of errors. So, I think the evidence is against your claim so far. And, as to this: "What happens in the real world? C." COBOL, Excel, Visual Basic 6, C, C++, Java, and .NET all have piles of code out there. That mean any one being dominant proves its the best? Nah, that happens for social and economic reasons, esp when ecosystem is established. Especially for C. It's worth considering alternatives such as Ada/SPARK, Rust, and D. I'm also for making the alternatives plug into and use C ecosystem nicely. Maybe even compile to it to leverage its tooling. When that happens, the alternative will strictly be better than C for being able to use all of its ecosystem strength with as little or much weaknesses as integrators want to bear.