4 ms·

Overview of the Ada Computer Language Competition (1979)

105 points by transpute 1y ago

synack 1y ago
There’s more detail about the language proposals and their merits here: (very large PDF) https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/ADB950587.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/ADB950587.pdf
- pixelesque 1y ago
  Heh. "We did not have enough time to do a thorough analysis. The languages arrived at WHMI on February 21 and were on my desk on February 22. To insure the analysis is on your desk by March 13, we have to mail our report on March 8. That gives us fourteen days (counting weekends) to read the languages and work on the analysis. Figure two days to read and understand a language. We have used eight days. Another three days are used to write a report and solicit comments, and one day is lost typing. That leaves two days to analyze the four languages. Even if we had a thousand computer scientists doing the analysis, we could have only scratched the surface of these designs. Two hundred and seventy women can not have a baby in a day."
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jakeisnotadog1 1y ago
https://archive.is/hZcMO https://archive.is/hZcMO
- tgv 1y ago
  Useful, as the site seems overloaded, but that link only says "Welcome to nginx".
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
kevlar700 1y ago
Interestingly Co-Pilot gets it wrong and states Ada was designed by committees instead of being multiple competitive processes. How misunderstood Ada is. https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/Jp9AmNHMEJzNmcbiu1VNx https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/Jp9AmNHMEJzNmcbiu1VNx https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/vUjdaDh4mXvj1fm4cyt15 https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/vUjdaDh4mXvj1fm4cyt15
- 7thaccount 1y ago
  I believe it was both: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Order_Language_Working_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Order_Language_Working_... The High Order Language Working Group came up with the requirements.
  - kevlar700 1y ago
    True but it was far more open than a committee. The STRAWMAN requirements were circulated widely for comment to industry, military, federal and academic communities and to select experts such as Dijkstra and Hoare. Then WOODENMAN circulated for comment after incorporating changes based on STRAWMANS responses.
    - adrian_b 1y ago
      I wish I knew who were the anonymous authors of DoD "IRONMAN" (January 1977), especially who has written the paragraph "7.2.F. (7F.) FORMAL PARAMETER CLASSES". "IRONMAN" has introduced a very important innovation in programming languages, which has been inherited by Ada and by its derivatives, e.g. VHDL (the innovation is that formal parameters may have 3 kinds of behaviors, "in", "out" and "in out", and that the parameter behavior must be specified, but not its implementation mechanism, like in older programming languages). Unfortunately this innovation has remained largely unknown for the authors of most more recent programming languages, which are defective because of that. If Bjarne Stroustrup had bothered to read carefully the Ada specification before conceiving "C with Classes", he might have understood the implication of the "IRONMAN" parameter classes for languages with constructors and destructors, like C++, which could have avoided many decades of pain for the C++ users. In a language with the "IRONMAN" parameter classes, constructors can be ordinary functions and there is no need for many features that complicate C++, like distinct copy constructors and assignment operators, or "move" semantics. Moreover, the performance problems that have plagued C++ before 2011, due to the creation of unnecessary temporaries, would have been avoided since the beginning. It is likely that the authors of "IRONMAN" did not fully understand the consequences of their innovation, but they had proposed it only in order to make the new DoD language more similar to Jovial, which was a programming language used in several DoD projects at that time. Jovial had such formal parameter classes, but their meaning was slightly different than in "IRONMAN" and in the later Ada, enough to make them much less useful. Before "IRONMAN", the earlier DoD requirements were to be able to specify whether the parameters are passed by value or by reference, which is an extremely wrong requirement. It is the same mistake made by C and by its derivatives, including recent derivatives, like Rust. How the parameters are passed must be decided by the compiler, not by the programmer. For the programmer it does not matter whether a parameter is passed by value or by reference, when the passing of the parameters is implemented correctly (e.g. an in-out parameter that is passed by value is copied from the caller to the function and then back when the function returns, if that is necessary; frequently this is not necessary, e.g. if the parameter is located in a register; if the in-out parameter is so big that copying would be slow, the compiler decides to pass it by reference; in C and its derivatives, both out and in-out parameters must be passed by reference, even when that is the wrong choice; moreover, the compiler cannot flag as an error the reading of an out parameter prior to its first writing).
askvictor 1y ago
How funny, I was just talking about and researching Ada at work this afternoon, while discussing what the best language for safety critical embedded systems would be
- gridtied 1y ago
  If i may, what was the outcome? ADA?
  - askvictor 1y ago
    It rated highly. But lack of community & ability to hire devs would be it's biggest problems. Rust isn't really mature enough in the embedded space just yet. So we'll be sticking with C/C++ for now D-:
    - transpute 1y ago
      On embedded systems with enough power budget to run statically-partitioned virtualized guest VMs, one could use different languages in different VMs, e.g. separated by maturity and talent availability for specific use cases. Or code that runs on a special-purpose processor. > lack of community & ability to hire devs would be it's biggest problems In some contexts, this might be a competitive advantage, e.g. Nvidia uses Ada to secure RoT firmware that protects their industry-leading margins. But they have the luxury of deep pockets and a full hiring pipeline, "Nvidia Security Team: “What if we just stopped using C?”, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42998383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42998383 SPARK is a formally defined computer programming language based on the Ada programming language, intended for the development of high integrity software used in systems where predictable and highly reliable operation is essential. It facilitates the development of applications that demand safety, security, or business integrity.
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
cpeterso 1y ago
Some biting critiques from Edsger Dijkstra: Red: “the proposal is both advanced and backward in such an incongruous manner that I am baffled” Green: “technical incompetence, probably enhanced by dishonesty” Blue: “the blue language is unacceptably complex” … “these documents are an inextricable mixture of technical documentation and salestalk” Yellow: “an unsalvageable mess” https://craftofcoding.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/dijkstra-on-ada/ https://craftofcoding.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/dijkstra-on-a...
- transpute 1y ago
  Discussion, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44057731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44057731
vaxman 1y ago
errbody from that era hates Ada --it was an edict that died once the promises of OOP began to be realized. "dead things should stay dead" - Pet Cemetery, Steven King If you want to have some fun from 1979, I highly recommend FORTH. It's really good and would have taken over the universe (lowercase u) had K&R C not dropped as part of the slow motion train wreck known as Unix (not to be confused with Linux). https://hackaday.io/project/170826/logs?sort=oldest https://hackaday.io/project/170826/logs?sort=oldest
- vaxman 1y ago
  PS: Charles "Chuck" Moore (who developed FORTH) last made a release called etherForth at https://etherforth.org/ https://etherforth.org/ It runs on a chip he designed called the GA144 (which is also programmed in arrayForth3) available at https://www.greenarraychips.com/home/products/index.php https://www.greenarraychips.com/home/products/index.php Again, this is for devs that want to have some fun. Between ZeptoForth and etherForth, you're covered.
- microtherion 1y ago
  FORTH is amazing for bootstrapping on a small system. But actually writing code with it is an acquired taste at best.

105 points by transpute 1y ago

There’s more detail about the language proposals and their merits here: (very large PDF) https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/ADB950587.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/ADB950587.pdf

pixelesque 1y ago
Heh. "We did not have enough time to do a thorough analysis. The languages arrived at WHMI on February 21 and were on my desk on February 22. To insure the analysis is on your desk by March 13, we have to mail our report on March 8. That gives us fourteen days (counting weekends) to read the languages and work on the analysis. Figure two days to read and understand a language. We have used eight days. Another three days are used to write a report and solicit comments, and one day is lost typing. That leaves two days to analyze the four languages. Even if we had a thousand computer scientists doing the analysis, we could have only scratched the surface of these designs. Two hundred and seventy women can not have a baby in a day."

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

jakeisnotadog1 1y ago

https://archive.is/hZcMO https://archive.is/hZcMO

tgv 1y ago
Useful, as the site seems overloaded, but that link only says "Welcome to nginx".
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

kevlar700 1y ago

Interestingly Co-Pilot gets it wrong and states Ada was designed by committees instead of being multiple competitive processes. How misunderstood Ada is. https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/Jp9AmNHMEJzNmcbiu1VNx https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/Jp9AmNHMEJzNmcbiu1VNx https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/vUjdaDh4mXvj1fm4cyt15 https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/vUjdaDh4mXvj1fm4cyt15

7thaccount 1y ago
I believe it was both: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Order_Language_Working_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Order_Language_Working_... The High Order Language Working Group came up with the requirements.
- kevlar700 1y ago
  True but it was far more open than a committee. The STRAWMAN requirements were circulated widely for comment to industry, military, federal and academic communities and to select experts such as Dijkstra and Hoare. Then WOODENMAN circulated for comment after incorporating changes based on STRAWMANS responses.
  - adrian_b 1y ago
    I wish I knew who were the anonymous authors of DoD "IRONMAN" (January 1977), especially who has written the paragraph "7.2.F. (7F.) FORMAL PARAMETER CLASSES". "IRONMAN" has introduced a very important innovation in programming languages, which has been inherited by Ada and by its derivatives, e.g. VHDL (the innovation is that formal parameters may have 3 kinds of behaviors, "in", "out" and "in out", and that the parameter behavior must be specified, but not its implementation mechanism, like in older programming languages). Unfortunately this innovation has remained largely unknown for the authors of most more recent programming languages, which are defective because of that. If Bjarne Stroustrup had bothered to read carefully the Ada specification before conceiving "C with Classes", he might have understood the implication of the "IRONMAN" parameter classes for languages with constructors and destructors, like C++, which could have avoided many decades of pain for the C++ users. In a language with the "IRONMAN" parameter classes, constructors can be ordinary functions and there is no need for many features that complicate C++, like distinct copy constructors and assignment operators, or "move" semantics. Moreover, the performance problems that have plagued C++ before 2011, due to the creation of unnecessary temporaries, would have been avoided since the beginning. It is likely that the authors of "IRONMAN" did not fully understand the consequences of their innovation, but they had proposed it only in order to make the new DoD language more similar to Jovial, which was a programming language used in several DoD projects at that time. Jovial had such formal parameter classes, but their meaning was slightly different than in "IRONMAN" and in the later Ada, enough to make them much less useful. Before "IRONMAN", the earlier DoD requirements were to be able to specify whether the parameters are passed by value or by reference, which is an extremely wrong requirement. It is the same mistake made by C and by its derivatives, including recent derivatives, like Rust. How the parameters are passed must be decided by the compiler, not by the programmer. For the programmer it does not matter whether a parameter is passed by value or by reference, when the passing of the parameters is implemented correctly (e.g. an in-out parameter that is passed by value is copied from the caller to the function and then back when the function returns, if that is necessary; frequently this is not necessary, e.g. if the parameter is located in a register; if the in-out parameter is so big that copying would be slow, the compiler decides to pass it by reference; in C and its derivatives, both out and in-out parameters must be passed by reference, even when that is the wrong choice; moreover, the compiler cannot flag as an error the reading of an out parameter prior to its first writing).

askvictor 1y ago

How funny, I was just talking about and researching Ada at work this afternoon, while discussing what the best language for safety critical embedded systems would be

gridtied 1y ago
If i may, what was the outcome? ADA?
- askvictor 1y ago
  It rated highly. But lack of community & ability to hire devs would be it's biggest problems. Rust isn't really mature enough in the embedded space just yet. So we'll be sticking with C/C++ for now D-:
  - transpute 1y ago
    On embedded systems with enough power budget to run statically-partitioned virtualized guest VMs, one could use different languages in different VMs, e.g. separated by maturity and talent availability for specific use cases. Or code that runs on a special-purpose processor. > lack of community & ability to hire devs would be it's biggest problems In some contexts, this might be a competitive advantage, e.g. Nvidia uses Ada to secure RoT firmware that protects their industry-leading margins. But they have the luxury of deep pockets and a full hiring pipeline, "Nvidia Security Team: “What if we just stopped using C?”, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42998383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42998383 SPARK is a formally defined computer programming language based on the Ada programming language, intended for the development of high integrity software used in systems where predictable and highly reliable operation is essential. It facilitates the development of applications that demand safety, security, or business integrity.

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

cpeterso 1y ago

Some biting critiques from Edsger Dijkstra: Red: “the proposal is both advanced and backward in such an incongruous manner that I am baffled” Green: “technical incompetence, probably enhanced by dishonesty” Blue: “the blue language is unacceptably complex” … “these documents are an inextricable mixture of technical documentation and salestalk” Yellow: “an unsalvageable mess” https://craftofcoding.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/dijkstra-on-ada/ https://craftofcoding.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/dijkstra-on-a...

transpute 1y ago
Discussion, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44057731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44057731

vaxman 1y ago

errbody from that era hates Ada --it was an edict that died once the promises of OOP began to be realized. "dead things should stay dead" - Pet Cemetery, Steven King If you want to have some fun from 1979, I highly recommend FORTH. It's really good and would have taken over the universe (lowercase u) had K&R C not dropped as part of the slow motion train wreck known as Unix (not to be confused with Linux). https://hackaday.io/project/170826/logs?sort=oldest https://hackaday.io/project/170826/logs?sort=oldest

vaxman 1y ago
PS: Charles "Chuck" Moore (who developed FORTH) last made a release called etherForth at https://etherforth.org/ https://etherforth.org/ It runs on a chip he designed called the GA144 (which is also programmed in arrayForth3) available at https://www.greenarraychips.com/home/products/index.php https://www.greenarraychips.com/home/products/index.php Again, this is for devs that want to have some fun. Between ZeptoForth and etherForth, you're covered.
microtherion 1y ago
FORTH is amazing for bootstrapping on a small system. But actually writing code with it is an acquired taste at best.