5 ms·

Since this was written in 1997 and C, C++, and Java have all evolved considerably since then (And Ada?) I'd be interested to see an updated version of this. Al

Since this was written in 1997 and C, C++, and Java have all evolved considerably since then (And Ada?) I'd be interested to see an updated version of this. Also, I remember hearing/reading somewhere, possible in a class I took on compilers, that the Ada language was so complex that it very likely would never have completed development if it were not backed by the government.

brohee 13y ago
I actually wonder how Go and Rust would fare, Rust very well I suspect...
- Blackthorn 13y ago
  The document is right there. You don't have to wonder, you can calculate it for yourself.
msbarnett 13y ago
> Since this was written in 1997 and C, C++, and Java have all evolved considerably since then (And Ada?) I'd be interested to see an updated version of this. Ada has seen 2 major updates to its standard -- the Ada 2005 and Ada 2012 standards. > Also, I remember hearing/reading somewhere, possible in a class I took on compilers, that the Ada language was so complex that it very likely would never have completed development if it were not backed by the government. There's a lot of weird myths floating about about the complexity of Ada. By the standards of the early 80s its certainly somewhat more complex than, say, C or Pascal, but it's orders of magnitude less complex than the C++ standard, and certainly easier to parse and compile. By modern standards its certainly a simpler language than Java.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  At least in Europe its use seems to be rising. At least that is my feeling from the Ada sessions at FOSDEM in the last years. I think it is helped by having a FOSS reference compiler (GNAT) and the required increase in terms of secure software quality, specially when human lives are at risk.
  - vince_refiti 13y ago
    For me, I have started to tinker with it because of the increase in the availability of documentation, especially from Adacore. Google will show you some high quality pdfs out there. There's also Adacore University. Also, the IDE - GNAT Programming Studio, is pretty good. I even used it to write some C.
  - copx 13y ago
    >I think it is helped by having a FOSS reference compiler (GNAT) It should be noted that the free version of said compiler may only be used to produce software released under a GPL compatible license. This is unusually restrictive and rules out Ada for most people right away. It is either Free Software only or an expensive commercial subscription to AdaCore's services. I mean the "expensive" is a guess, but given that they do not list prices on their website but ask you to contact their sales department, we can assume they are far from cheap. In a world where you can develop commercial, closed source software in all popular languages using free tools this seems anachronistic. I understand that AdaCore needs to make money somehow and this is probably the best business strategy for them, but still, it seriously limits the appeal. The appeal of Ada in general too, because it seems there is no (truly) free, modern Ada compiler. Interestingly enough the situation seems to be similar for most of the failed languages of days gone by. If you look for implementations you only find DOS era stuff and X thousand dollar "solutions" which milk the enterprise/government legacy code market.
    - vertex-four 13y ago
      There's a version of GNAT distributed by GNU, about a year behind AdaCore's version, which allows you to use the Ada libraries without your program coming under the GPL.
    - phaker 13y ago
      > It should be noted that the free version of said compiler may only be used to produce software released under a GPL compatible license. No. No. No. GCC GNAT is under GPL 3 with GCC runtime library exception, the same license as the rest of GCC. Before GPL 3 it was licensed under GMGPL -- GNAT Modified GPL, which was very similar to the the current license as the "runtime library exception" is intended to unify similar exceptions from several GCC compilers, for example if you're using C++11 on GCC you are bound by the exact same license. I'm sorry if i'm not as nice as I could be. Every time Ada is mentioned someone chimes in with mythical license woes. You're doing harm by spreading misinformation. This myth needs to die.
pjmlp 13y ago
Ada was complex for the time it was developed (1983), due to hardware constraints for compiler development. Nowadays, Ada is not more complex than most mainstream languages, specially when you take in consideration all the undefined and unspecified cases in C and C++. To a certain extent, all the older languages still in used nowadays were also backed by the goverment. Funny anecdote, One of the first IDEs for strong typed languages was targeted at Ada, the R1000 computer system, created by a young company named "Rational Software".
- Guvante 13y ago
  > specially when you take in consideration all the undefined and unspecified cases in C and C++. That is an odd way of putting it. Aren't undefined/unspecified behaviors allowed to be implemented in whatever is simplest for the compiler if it prefers? Sure many modern compilers leverage them to expand the power of their optimization engines, but that isn't really a language difficulty case.
  - jeffreyrogers 12y ago
    I'm not sure why you've been downvoted, because you're correct. The reason C has so many undefined and unspecified cases was so that the implementation was relatively easy for compiler writers.

brohee 13y ago

I actually wonder how Go and Rust would fare, Rust very well I suspect...

Blackthorn 13y ago
The document is right there. You don't have to wonder, you can calculate it for yourself.

msbarnett 13y ago

> Since this was written in 1997 and C, C++, and Java have all evolved considerably since then (And Ada?) I'd be interested to see an updated version of this. Ada has seen 2 major updates to its standard -- the Ada 2005 and Ada 2012 standards. > Also, I remember hearing/reading somewhere, possible in a class I took on compilers, that the Ada language was so complex that it very likely would never have completed development if it were not backed by the government. There's a lot of weird myths floating about about the complexity of Ada. By the standards of the early 80s its certainly somewhat more complex than, say, C or Pascal, but it's orders of magnitude less complex than the C++ standard, and certainly easier to parse and compile. By modern standards its certainly a simpler language than Java.

pjmlp 13y ago
At least in Europe its use seems to be rising. At least that is my feeling from the Ada sessions at FOSDEM in the last years. I think it is helped by having a FOSS reference compiler (GNAT) and the required increase in terms of secure software quality, specially when human lives are at risk.
- vince_refiti 13y ago
  For me, I have started to tinker with it because of the increase in the availability of documentation, especially from Adacore. Google will show you some high quality pdfs out there. There's also Adacore University. Also, the IDE - GNAT Programming Studio, is pretty good. I even used it to write some C.
- copx 13y ago
  >I think it is helped by having a FOSS reference compiler (GNAT) It should be noted that the free version of said compiler may only be used to produce software released under a GPL compatible license. This is unusually restrictive and rules out Ada for most people right away. It is either Free Software only or an expensive commercial subscription to AdaCore's services. I mean the "expensive" is a guess, but given that they do not list prices on their website but ask you to contact their sales department, we can assume they are far from cheap. In a world where you can develop commercial, closed source software in all popular languages using free tools this seems anachronistic. I understand that AdaCore needs to make money somehow and this is probably the best business strategy for them, but still, it seriously limits the appeal. The appeal of Ada in general too, because it seems there is no (truly) free, modern Ada compiler. Interestingly enough the situation seems to be similar for most of the failed languages of days gone by. If you look for implementations you only find DOS era stuff and X thousand dollar "solutions" which milk the enterprise/government legacy code market.
  - vertex-four 13y ago
    There's a version of GNAT distributed by GNU, about a year behind AdaCore's version, which allows you to use the Ada libraries without your program coming under the GPL.
  - phaker 13y ago
    > It should be noted that the free version of said compiler may only be used to produce software released under a GPL compatible license. No. No. No. GCC GNAT is under GPL 3 with GCC runtime library exception, the same license as the rest of GCC. Before GPL 3 it was licensed under GMGPL -- GNAT Modified GPL, which was very similar to the the current license as the "runtime library exception" is intended to unify similar exceptions from several GCC compilers, for example if you're using C++11 on GCC you are bound by the exact same license. I'm sorry if i'm not as nice as I could be. Every time Ada is mentioned someone chimes in with mythical license woes. You're doing harm by spreading misinformation. This myth needs to die.

pjmlp 13y ago

Ada was complex for the time it was developed (1983), due to hardware constraints for compiler development. Nowadays, Ada is not more complex than most mainstream languages, specially when you take in consideration all the undefined and unspecified cases in C and C++. To a certain extent, all the older languages still in used nowadays were also backed by the goverment. Funny anecdote, One of the first IDEs for strong typed languages was targeted at Ada, the R1000 computer system, created by a young company named "Rational Software".

Guvante 13y ago
> specially when you take in consideration all the undefined and unspecified cases in C and C++. That is an odd way of putting it. Aren't undefined/unspecified behaviors allowed to be implemented in whatever is simplest for the compiler if it prefers? Sure many modern compilers leverage them to expand the power of their optimization engines, but that isn't really a language difficulty case.
- jeffreyrogers 12y ago
  I'm not sure why you've been downvoted, because you're correct. The reason C has so many undefined and unspecified cases was so that the implementation was relatively easy for compiler writers.