> "For me, without knowing Ada and Rust, Ada is way much easier to understand." If you don't know Ada then you don't /know/ that you understand it, you're assu

> "For me, without knowing Ada and Rust, Ada is way much easier to understand." If you don't know Ada then you don't /know/ that you understand it, you're assuming you do - and if you do that's because it looks like languages you already know. And if that's what you're saying is good about it, then what you're saying is "things I know are good". You're seeing "Ada looks familiar" and saying "Ada has good design" as if those are the same thing. You only need to look at some beginner programming discussions to see that block-structured, scoped, procedural, looped, branched, etc. features are not things people are born understanding - that you know them already and Ada has them is convenient for you. > "What the code does is not hidden behind symbols, for example." I looked at the Wikipedia page, it has equals, colon-equals, slash-equals, greater-than, less-than, apostrophe, parentheses, ampersand, double-quotes, equals-greater-than which seems to be an arrow not a comparison, double-dots, and of course "when" "is" "protected" etc. they're as much symbols as they are words. > "Ada and Rust, Ada is way much easier to understand" I'll quote Erik Naggum from an old comp.lang.lisp(?) comment: "When I work at this system up to 12 hours a day, I'm profoundly uninterested in what user interface a novice user would prefer.".