3 ms·
I agree that using a safe language is a necessity, especially for safety critical environments and to ensure better security. But a safe language alone does no
by thesuperbigfrog 7y ago
I agree that using a safe language is a necessity, especially for safety critical environments and to ensure better security. But a safe language alone does not ensure a good design. Ada is a great language (although strings are a bit of a pain), but that alone will not ensure a good operating system design.
POSIX is a great standard, but it is too tightly coupled with C. If a similarly mature and open Ada-based standard could be designed and created, that would be great. If such a design were created, what would it look like? How would files be represented and stored? How would you start, stop, or communicate with tasks? (POSIX-style signals? Rendezvous? Something else?)
There needs to be an open design that is as well thought out as the Ada programming language to really take advantage of everything that it offers.
- zozbot234 7y agoThere's an official Ada binding for POSIX.
- thesuperbigfrog 7y agoDo you have a link to the documentation? I am aware of Interfaces.C and the non-standard but highly-useful GNAT.OS_Lib. Any others would be nice to know about. POSIX is a mature set of APIs and designs, but it is C-centric. It is an impedance mismatch discards many of the advantages of using Ada in the first place.