5 ms·

Ada and C++ are worlds apart, how is it possible to come so close as to be "just syntax" with static analyzers and their known limitations? Unless we are talkin

by zurn 5y ago

Ada and C++ are worlds apart, how is it possible to come so close as to be "just syntax" with static analyzers and their known limitations? Unless we are talking about all programming languages being "just syntax" for a turing machine...

OnlyOneCannolo 5y ago
I think they're saying that the switch was justified because the workforce is no longer familiar with Ada.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  More importantly the workforce is familiar with C/C++, how it’s listed on so many job listings. Which is kind of sad as a requirement. A programmer who can’t become productive with Ada after a few weeks (productive, not masterful) is not the kind of programmer anyone should be hiring for any job. The syntax is (almost) dead simple, for a reason.
  - OnlyOneCannolo 5y ago
    Edit: Retracting my whole comment for being wrong.
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      Those jobs require competence from most contributors. Mastery from a few. And you can teach mastery to non-incompetent people, most of the time. Also, most jobs that Ada would be used for aren't time critical (in the sense of "Oh god oh god oh god we've got to ship yesterday!", unless it's F-35, which fortunately didn't use Ada because that would've saved them a lot of heartache). They program in 2-5 years for the project so 1 month to competency and then additional OJT from more experienced (with Ada and the system) over the rest of the time will produce mastery.
      - OnlyOneCannolo 5y ago
        True. I take back what I wrote for being too reductive. Well said.
    - jnwatson 5y ago
      I would doubt there are enough masters of C++ to fill an airplane.
Nokinside 5y ago
> Ada and C++ are worlds apart, Yes. But as I said, programmers use just tiny subset of the language. Subsets are with additional checks are semantically very similar. Very dumped down code. > being "just syntax" for a turing machine.. If you insist, I would describe them as intermediate representations for the back-ends for a non-Turing equivalent language (after all semantic checking). Compilers parse text, check it matches the syntax, do some semantic checks, and then output native code (unless they transpile). When you write safety-critical code you can buy tools that make more far more checks to the semantics than the compiler and prevent the use of some constructs. Ada has SPARK that is integrated better. For example, the tool I mention can prove that if code has no run-time errors or divisions by zero. It's essentially non-Turing equivalent language. I would prefer Ada/Spark over C, but it don't matter that much, so I have always used C with tooling.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Static analyzers have come a long long way in the last 10 years. I don't know what they've done, but you could get a long way just by forbidding all dynamic allocation.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  Could expand on this? I’ve heard it a lot. What advances have happened?

by zurn 5y ago

OnlyOneCannolo 5y ago

I think they're saying that the switch was justified because the workforce is no longer familiar with Ada.

Jtsummers 5y ago
More importantly the workforce is familiar with C/C++, how it’s listed on so many job listings. Which is kind of sad as a requirement. A programmer who can’t become productive with Ada after a few weeks (productive, not masterful) is not the kind of programmer anyone should be hiring for any job. The syntax is (almost) dead simple, for a reason.
- OnlyOneCannolo 5y ago
  Edit: Retracting my whole comment for being wrong.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    Those jobs require competence from most contributors. Mastery from a few. And you can teach mastery to non-incompetent people, most of the time. Also, most jobs that Ada would be used for aren't time critical (in the sense of "Oh god oh god oh god we've got to ship yesterday!", unless it's F-35, which fortunately didn't use Ada because that would've saved them a lot of heartache). They program in 2-5 years for the project so 1 month to competency and then additional OJT from more experienced (with Ada and the system) over the rest of the time will produce mastery.
    - OnlyOneCannolo 5y ago
      True. I take back what I wrote for being too reductive. Well said.
  - jnwatson 5y ago
    I would doubt there are enough masters of C++ to fill an airplane.

Nokinside 5y ago

> Ada and C++ are worlds apart, Yes. But as I said, programmers use just tiny subset of the language. Subsets are with additional checks are semantically very similar. Very dumped down code. > being "just syntax" for a turing machine.. If you insist, I would describe them as intermediate representations for the back-ends for a non-Turing equivalent language (after all semantic checking). Compilers parse text, check it matches the syntax, do some semantic checks, and then output native code (unless they transpile). When you write safety-critical code you can buy tools that make more far more checks to the semantics than the compiler and prevent the use of some constructs. Ada has SPARK that is integrated better. For example, the tool I mention can prove that if code has no run-time errors or divisions by zero. It's essentially non-Turing equivalent language. I would prefer Ada/Spark over C, but it don't matter that much, so I have always used C with tooling.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

Static analyzers have come a long long way in the last 10 years. I don't know what they've done, but you could get a long way just by forbidding all dynamic allocation.

pyuser583 5y ago
Could expand on this? I’ve heard it a lot. What advances have happened?