4 ms·

Ada was the CISC of languages - high-concept the same way. And it lost to C, surely the RISC of languages. Never bet against low-tech.

lproven 4y ago
> Ada was the CISC of languages - high-concept the same way. For a long time, many years, in the "programming language benchmarks game", Ada regularly and consistently came 2nd only to C in raw compiled-code execution speed. There is a huge but mostly unrecognised amount of hearsay, rumour and scuttlebutt in the computing industry. People hear something, believe it, and make choices based upon it, without checking or looking for evidence... as they do with medicine and so on, or there would be no "supplementary, complementary and alternative medicine". It doesn't work. It is a SCAM. People heard "Ada is big" and thought "big means slow" and avoided it. It was quite big in the 1980s, from what I can tell, but that was about 4-5 chip and software generations ago. (H/w: Caches, scalar, superscalar, multicore, 64-bit.) (S/w: 16-bit, no memory protection; 32-bit, ditto; 32-bit with memory protection; ubiquitous hypervisors; virtualised 64-bit with memory protection.) Compared to C++, Ada is a tiny lean fast sportscar of a language. > Never bet against low-tech. It isn't low-tech. It was in 1972 or something. Never bet against "worse is better" is more like it.
- igouy 4y ago
  fwiw https://web.archive.org/web/20150929064737/http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programs-are-fastest.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150929064737/http://benchmarks... https://web.archive.org/web/20150104073800/http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programs-are-fastest.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150104073800/http://benchmarks...
  - lproven 4y ago
    Not sure what you are trying to tell us here, TBH. Can you explain in words?
    - igouy 4y ago
      Data. You say "2nd only to C" but don't provide data. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all...
      - lproven 4y ago
        Aha, ISWYM now. I can't. I just remember noticing it a few years back, and being surprised, and then checking occasionally and it stayed there for a while. Why not contact them and ask, if you're curious? If I'm wrong, you'll have the pleasure of refuting me. ;-)
        igouy 4y ago
        > Compared to C++, Ada is a tiny lean fast sportscar of a language. We can all see C++ program measurements faster than Ada program measurements in those archived "programming language benchmarks game" charts.
        lproven 4y ago
        What I was getting at was the size of the language, not its compiled speed. Does any single human understand all of C++ and use it all? Is it even possible any more? If they did, could anyone else read the code?
- johnnyjeans 4y ago
  people "avoided" it because up until fairly recently in its history, the only available compilers were priced to sell to the US Department of Defense and the language was too complex for other people to bother implementing a standards compliant compiler. it's an absurd language with a few good ideas buried underneath a mountain of engineering cruft. it's a fantastic reflection of the environment it was born out of.
  - lproven 4y ago
    That's a fair point. However until relatively recently in the history of programming language in general that was true. All of them. There has been a decent C compiler for the last ⅔ of my career, roughly. Other languages followed; I remember early in my working life when Zortech announced the first ever native-code C++ compiler, and it was commercial. As was Pascal etc. The mailing list I've been on for the longest time in my life is the British APL society (some 38 years now), and for much of the first 2 decades I was on that, one of their main goals was a decent free or cheap APL interpreter. Then suddenly there were free compilers and interpreters everywhere from the mid-1990s onwards. About the time ordinary consumer Windows got useful, suddenly, so did Linux, and then suddently decent free compilers were everywhere. And about 5Y later, Mac OS X happened. Then about 5Y after Mac OS X first appeared, meaning OS X Server with the Platinum appearance, suddenly Linux started to catch up in earnest... meaning that soon after MS forced Corel to kill Corel LinuxOS and WordPerfect Office for Linux, and Caldera went insane, Bruce Perens proposed UserLinux... And within a year or two, Ubuntu appeared, and Fedora started playing catch-up, as it still is. And after a couple of years, Ubuntu got pretty good, and frankly, for all its foibles, it's still the best freebie for non-techies. Or Ubuntu derivatives, such as Mint, Zinc, Zorin, or Linux Lite ( which isn't light at all, but is all right otherwise.)
    - johnnyjeans 4y ago
      Of course you make a good point yourself, compilers generally weren't free (as in beer) back then. What makes Ada stand out is that it was quite a bit pricier. The "small developer" license of AdaCore for example is $25k/year and it covers 5 seats. Hobbyists aren't going to pay that. It was 3 years after Zortech's compiler that Borland came out with their own C++ priced at $100 and was more than good enough (I don't know Zortech's pricing model to compare.) The only free Ada compiler I know of is GNAT and it's rife with issues (extremely massive binary size, even with the runtime disabled) Honestly the tooling just isn't great for the language. It's a real shame, because the subtyping system and design-through-contracts are way ahead of their time. ATS is the only other language I can think of that offers such robust safety features while also targeting the same performance as a systems lang.

lproven 4y ago

> Ada was the CISC of languages - high-concept the same way. For a long time, many years, in the "programming language benchmarks game", Ada regularly and consistently came 2nd only to C in raw compiled-code execution speed. There is a huge but mostly unrecognised amount of hearsay, rumour and scuttlebutt in the computing industry. People hear something, believe it, and make choices based upon it, without checking or looking for evidence... as they do with medicine and so on, or there would be no "supplementary, complementary and alternative medicine". It doesn't work. It is a SCAM. People heard "Ada is big" and thought "big means slow" and avoided it. It was quite big in the 1980s, from what I can tell, but that was about 4-5 chip and software generations ago. (H/w: Caches, scalar, superscalar, multicore, 64-bit.) (S/w: 16-bit, no memory protection; 32-bit, ditto; 32-bit with memory protection; ubiquitous hypervisors; virtualised 64-bit with memory protection.) Compared to C++, Ada is a tiny lean fast sportscar of a language. > Never bet against low-tech. It isn't low-tech. It was in 1972 or something. Never bet against "worse is better" is more like it.

igouy 4y ago
fwiw https://web.archive.org/web/20150929064737/http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programs-are-fastest.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150929064737/http://benchmarks... https://web.archive.org/web/20150104073800/http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programs-are-fastest.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150104073800/http://benchmarks...
- lproven 4y ago
  Not sure what you are trying to tell us here, TBH. Can you explain in words?
  - igouy 4y ago
    Data. You say "2nd only to C" but don't provide data. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all...
    - lproven 4y ago
      Aha, ISWYM now. I can't. I just remember noticing it a few years back, and being surprised, and then checking occasionally and it stayed there for a while. Why not contact them and ask, if you're curious? If I'm wrong, you'll have the pleasure of refuting me. ;-)
      - igouy 4y ago
        > Compared to C++, Ada is a tiny lean fast sportscar of a language. We can all see C++ program measurements faster than Ada program measurements in those archived "programming language benchmarks game" charts.
        lproven 4y ago
        What I was getting at was the size of the language, not its compiled speed. Does any single human understand all of C++ and use it all? Is it even possible any more? If they did, could anyone else read the code?
johnnyjeans 4y ago
people "avoided" it because up until fairly recently in its history, the only available compilers were priced to sell to the US Department of Defense and the language was too complex for other people to bother implementing a standards compliant compiler. it's an absurd language with a few good ideas buried underneath a mountain of engineering cruft. it's a fantastic reflection of the environment it was born out of.
- lproven 4y ago
  That's a fair point. However until relatively recently in the history of programming language in general that was true. All of them. There has been a decent C compiler for the last ⅔ of my career, roughly. Other languages followed; I remember early in my working life when Zortech announced the first ever native-code C++ compiler, and it was commercial. As was Pascal etc. The mailing list I've been on for the longest time in my life is the British APL society (some 38 years now), and for much of the first 2 decades I was on that, one of their main goals was a decent free or cheap APL interpreter. Then suddenly there were free compilers and interpreters everywhere from the mid-1990s onwards. About the time ordinary consumer Windows got useful, suddenly, so did Linux, and then suddently decent free compilers were everywhere. And about 5Y later, Mac OS X happened. Then about 5Y after Mac OS X first appeared, meaning OS X Server with the Platinum appearance, suddenly Linux started to catch up in earnest... meaning that soon after MS forced Corel to kill Corel LinuxOS and WordPerfect Office for Linux, and Caldera went insane, Bruce Perens proposed UserLinux... And within a year or two, Ubuntu appeared, and Fedora started playing catch-up, as it still is. And after a couple of years, Ubuntu got pretty good, and frankly, for all its foibles, it's still the best freebie for non-techies. Or Ubuntu derivatives, such as Mint, Zinc, Zorin, or Linux Lite ( which isn't light at all, but is all right otherwise.)
  - johnnyjeans 4y ago
    Of course you make a good point yourself, compilers generally weren't free (as in beer) back then. What makes Ada stand out is that it was quite a bit pricier. The "small developer" license of AdaCore for example is $25k/year and it covers 5 seats. Hobbyists aren't going to pay that. It was 3 years after Zortech's compiler that Borland came out with their own C++ priced at $100 and was more than good enough (I don't know Zortech's pricing model to compare.) The only free Ada compiler I know of is GNAT and it's rife with issues (extremely massive binary size, even with the runtime disabled) Honestly the tooling just isn't great for the language. It's a real shame, because the subtyping system and design-through-contracts are way ahead of their time. ATS is the only other language I can think of that offers such robust safety features while also targeting the same performance as a systems lang.