There is a case for Ada being a fun language to program in. Ada will likely appeal to those who enjoy organization. A fan of Ada will likely have a neatly-ord

There is a case for Ada being a fun language to program in. Ada will likely appeal to those who enjoy organization. A fan of Ada will likely have a neatly-ordered garage, or if they do DBA work, they will be drawn to the elaborate and tidy typing which C.J. Date demonstrated in his Tutorial-D language. To reuse the garage analogy, simple types will likely appear to those naturally drawn to Ada as unboxed tools or unshelved parts. Personally I prefer C or Go's approach to typing, eg., use base types (int32, int64, string, etc.) as often as possible or practicable and keep the type hierarchy flat by avoiding multiple-inheritance. Using base types keeps things simple as is reflected in Go's documentation; when descending through documentation for types one can be confident that there is not far to go before hitting a base type. The object is understood. I do love Ada's use of the range operator (".."), as with it one can simply create 1-based domains and thereby avoid C's omnipresent 0-based domains.