I have only hobbyist experience with ADA. It didn't seem nearly as hard as a lot of people said it was, and I was intrigued about in which ways it's safer than

I have only hobbyist experience with ADA. It didn't seem nearly as hard as a lot of people said it was, and I was intrigued about in which ways it's safer than C. My best guess is that people are unfamiliar with ADA, unwilling to learn, and most of all believe that hiring will turn into a problem if they switch to ADA. Also they bring up the brilliant programmer theory. The hiring problem seems superficially compelling. There are indeed fewer ADA programmers out there, which of course is a chicken and egg problem if companies are not trying to adopt it. Now the fourth argument often follows the third argument. My problem with it is that most of the programmers I've worked with that I'd describe as brilliant are the first ones to tell you that we should use a safer language, because they know even they make mistakes. And a lot of the brilliant programmers wouldn't have trouble picking up ADA or learning something new. So my answer would be that if you truly have brilliant programmers, you don't need to worry about hiring. If you don't have those brilliant programmers you really can't afford staying with C because you will have huge costs from debugging and being sued for the bugs you didn't find.