> 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

> 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.