4 ms·

>the Ada implementation had nearly double the lines of code as the C reference I'll point out to others in the audience: this is largely an artifact of Ada syn

>the Ada implementation had nearly double the lines of code as the C reference I'll point out to others in the audience: this is largely an artifact of Ada syntax being more verbose, and Ada programming practice favouring longer and more explanatory identifiers compared to C (where a lot of code looks like line noise). For example, see this post and compare the size of the C code vs. the equivalent Ada code: https://borretti.me/article/signed-integers-asymmetrical https://borretti.me/article/signed-integers-asymmetrical

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
A lot of the Ada limitations pointed out in the paper were fixed in Ada95.
- pyjarrett 5y ago
  > A lot of the Ada limitations pointed out in the paper were fixed in Ada95. I was going to say that as well. I only more recently hopped on the train, but I didn't see anything which would be problematic for Ada 2012. I've had no problems in my projects doing bit manipulation, using function pointers, dynamic dispatch, or interfacing with C code which uses `void*`. > this is largely an artifact of Ada syntax being more verbose There's a very negative connotation of "verbose" like it's the worst thing in the world. The better way of describing this is the language is explicit and focuses on describing intent. This means it doesn't take long to learn to read and understand standard library code or code from other projects.
  - zetalyrae 5y ago
    >There's a very negative connotation of "verbose" like it's the worst thing in the world. The better way of describing this is the language is explicit and focuses on describing intent. This means it doesn't take long to learn to read and understand standard library code or code from other projects. I agree that it's good. But it's objectively longer, which is what I meant.
    - salawat 5y ago
      Source code is there for people; the question becomes, does it become more understandable?
0xDEEPFAC 5y ago
> this is largely an artifact of Ada syntax being more verbose If you think Ada is actually verbose check out the Ada++ comparisons with other major languages like C++ and Java. http://www.adapplang.com/tutorial.html http://www.adapplang.com/tutorial.html
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  Stop posting an April Fool’s joke as if it were serious, please.
  - 0xDEEPFAC 5y ago
    its a working compiler, so why not?
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      It’s a glorified sed script with a forked version of GCC from April 1st. It’s a joke.
      - 0xDEEPFAC 5y ago
        It is not? As the creator I can tell you that the parser and analyzer of GCC/GNAT were modified. For example, supporting implicit "use" clauses for packages was a difficult problem to solve - not to mention allowing for abbreviated type names in the Standard package.
  - exikyut 5y ago
    Just had a look at the linked page out of piqued curiosity. The "get started" link on the homepage points to a GitHub release page (https://github.com/AdaPlusPlus/gcc/releases/tag/0-2-0 https://github.com/AdaPlusPlus/gcc/releases/tag/0-2-0) with a 908MB "adapp-for-linux.gz". I'm presuming this is real (908MB would take a tad too long to download today), but if it isn't, that's definitely up there in terms of execution. I completely believe it. Edit: Oh.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

A lot of the Ada limitations pointed out in the paper were fixed in Ada95.

pyjarrett 5y ago
> A lot of the Ada limitations pointed out in the paper were fixed in Ada95. I was going to say that as well. I only more recently hopped on the train, but I didn't see anything which would be problematic for Ada 2012. I've had no problems in my projects doing bit manipulation, using function pointers, dynamic dispatch, or interfacing with C code which uses `void*`. > this is largely an artifact of Ada syntax being more verbose There's a very negative connotation of "verbose" like it's the worst thing in the world. The better way of describing this is the language is explicit and focuses on describing intent. This means it doesn't take long to learn to read and understand standard library code or code from other projects.
- zetalyrae 5y ago
  >There's a very negative connotation of "verbose" like it's the worst thing in the world. The better way of describing this is the language is explicit and focuses on describing intent. This means it doesn't take long to learn to read and understand standard library code or code from other projects. I agree that it's good. But it's objectively longer, which is what I meant.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Source code is there for people; the question becomes, does it become more understandable?

0xDEEPFAC 5y ago

> this is largely an artifact of Ada syntax being more verbose If you think Ada is actually verbose check out the Ada++ comparisons with other major languages like C++ and Java. http://www.adapplang.com/tutorial.html http://www.adapplang.com/tutorial.html

Jtsummers 5y ago
Stop posting an April Fool’s joke as if it were serious, please.
- 0xDEEPFAC 5y ago
  its a working compiler, so why not?
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    It’s a glorified sed script with a forked version of GCC from April 1st. It’s a joke.
    - 0xDEEPFAC 5y ago
      It is not? As the creator I can tell you that the parser and analyzer of GCC/GNAT were modified. For example, supporting implicit "use" clauses for packages was a difficult problem to solve - not to mention allowing for abbreviated type names in the Standard package.
- exikyut 5y ago
  Just had a look at the linked page out of piqued curiosity. The "get started" link on the homepage points to a GitHub release page (https://github.com/AdaPlusPlus/gcc/releases/tag/0-2-0 https://github.com/AdaPlusPlus/gcc/releases/tag/0-2-0) with a 908MB "adapp-for-linux.gz". I'm presuming this is real (908MB would take a tad too long to download today), but if it isn't, that's definitely up there in terms of execution. I completely believe it. Edit: Oh.