4 ms·

It was written as part of a DoD project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language

It was written as part of a DoD project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)#His...

dhosek 6y ago
I remember when it came out. It was a bear when it came to CPU time for compilation. At UIC, where CPU time was subject to weekly quotas, students in the Ada team had to work in teams because they'd use up their quota of CPU time (you'd get a fresh allocation of CPU each week and once you went over your quota you couldn't log back in until you got a new allocation) in one programming session and would have to log in to a different account to continue working the next day.
- int_19h 6y ago
  I don't have any practical experience with the language, but based on the spec, it sounds like Ada generics would have much the same problem wrt compilation times as C++ templates do, at least if you try to fully optimize them (i.e. avoid boxing and similar techniques to allow generic code to be compiled just once, instead of once for every unique instantiation in every translation unit).
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Not really, they need to be explicitly defined before use. Which then thanks to packages, they can be reused across several projects when similar type parameters are required. So you only generate List(T => Integer) once for the whole project, when project architecture is properly done. A scenario that eventually might be possible in C++, around C++23 time frame, taking into consideration how long the modules infrastructure might need to mature.
- wwright 6y ago
  Sounds like Rust, hah.
  - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
    In many ways Rust fills part of the conceptual space that Ada was attemptiong to fill. Both are very concerned with safety. Except Ada was military/government mandated, and the syntax is probably the opposite of Rust: very verbose, very wordy. And the concept of type inference is anathema to the Ada mindset, where everything is explicitly... explicit. I've never used Ada for work but I went through a couple years where I enjoyed playing with the language as a sort of C++ alternative. I ... kind of? like it, but then I learned Pascal and Modula-2 before I ever learned C, so...
    - sheepybloke 6y ago
      One of the nice things about the verbosity is that it's really easy to read. I've been working with code from the late 90's for some aircraft and it makes it really easy to review and get into the code (when well-written). The other thing is that the strong types are really powerful. If Ada compiles, then the only things that you have to worry about is if your logic is right or if you remembered to init an array.
    - OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
      Also, whereas Ada is perfectly fine with introducing runtime overhead, Rust takes a zero runtime cost approach when possible, otherwise it doesn't offer that feature as part of the language.

It was written as part of a DoD project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)#His...

dhosek 6y ago

I remember when it came out. It was a bear when it came to CPU time for compilation. At UIC, where CPU time was subject to weekly quotas, students in the Ada team had to work in teams because they'd use up their quota of CPU time (you'd get a fresh allocation of CPU each week and once you went over your quota you couldn't log back in until you got a new allocation) in one programming session and would have to log in to a different account to continue working the next day.

int_19h 6y ago
I don't have any practical experience with the language, but based on the spec, it sounds like Ada generics would have much the same problem wrt compilation times as C++ templates do, at least if you try to fully optimize them (i.e. avoid boxing and similar techniques to allow generic code to be compiled just once, instead of once for every unique instantiation in every translation unit).
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Not really, they need to be explicitly defined before use. Which then thanks to packages, they can be reused across several projects when similar type parameters are required. So you only generate List(T => Integer) once for the whole project, when project architecture is properly done. A scenario that eventually might be possible in C++, around C++23 time frame, taking into consideration how long the modules infrastructure might need to mature.
wwright 6y ago
Sounds like Rust, hah.
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  In many ways Rust fills part of the conceptual space that Ada was attemptiong to fill. Both are very concerned with safety. Except Ada was military/government mandated, and the syntax is probably the opposite of Rust: very verbose, very wordy. And the concept of type inference is anathema to the Ada mindset, where everything is explicitly... explicit. I've never used Ada for work but I went through a couple years where I enjoyed playing with the language as a sort of C++ alternative. I ... kind of? like it, but then I learned Pascal and Modula-2 before I ever learned C, so...
  - sheepybloke 6y ago
    One of the nice things about the verbosity is that it's really easy to read. I've been working with code from the late 90's for some aircraft and it makes it really easy to review and get into the code (when well-written). The other thing is that the strong types are really powerful. If Ada compiles, then the only things that you have to worry about is if your logic is right or if you remembered to init an array.
  - OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
    Also, whereas Ada is perfectly fine with introducing runtime overhead, Rust takes a zero runtime cost approach when possible, otherwise it doesn't offer that feature as part of the language.