4 ms·
Proprietary compilers, some limitations in the type system meant the standard library wasn't as useful even though it is a safer language as a result. The verbo
by naasking 4y ago
Proprietary compilers, some limitations in the type system meant the standard library wasn't as useful even though it is a safer language as a result. The verbosity also turned me of initially.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoIt was also a bit of a PITA before Ada'95 and by which time C had won.
- pjmlp 4y agoC and C++ also only had proprietary compilers, mostly. However both were born alongside UNIX and that helped C++ to be quickly adopted by all major C compiler vendors, whereas Ada was always something extra to pay on top. When targeting UNIX, with C and C++ compilers on the box, who is going to pay extra for the Ada compiler unless required to do so?
- naasking 4y ago> C and C++ also only had proprietary compilers, mostly. I was thinking more in the 90s where GNU already had a freely available C compiler, but GNAT didn't get a free version until the late 90s, and even then it was built on a fork of gcc you had to download separately until like 2000. It was just a lot of work to get up and running, as opposed to the bundling of C/C++ compilers with Linux that was common, as you say. The initial C compatibility helped C++ a lot too.
- pjmlp 4y agoGCC only took off because Sun decided to split their UNIX into user and developer editions, and other UNIX vendors followed. Still same rule applies, when a UNIX shop paid for UNIX developer tooling, usually languages like Ada and Modula-2 weren't in the box, you needed to pay extra.