6 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.

> 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.
    - hga 12y ago
      A myth with a kernel of truth, and a licencing situation that's in truth a bit complicated, means there's significantly more "friction" involved with a decision to use GNAT, and therefore to even begin thinking about messing with Ada or SPARK. As I note in another posting in this subtread, that not a good way of "doing business", and can do nothing but suppress interest in and use of Ada or SPARK. E.g. I have every reason to believe you and the others commenting on this, but I'm going to have to confirm for myself that this is correct.
    - copx 12y ago
      >You're doing harm by spreading misinformation. Blame AdaCore. I based my statement on the information on their website [1]. They certainly try to convince people that you have to buy GNAT Pro if you want to build non-GPL compatible software. Based on the other comments here, it seems it is actually possible to use GNAT, with an alternative FSF runtime, to build non-GPL compatible software without a license. Great, however AdaCore certainly likes to keep quiet about that possibility (for understandable reasons). Also as a potential user I would be worried about the quality of said runtime, given that it probably has no serious users and very little manpower behind it. [1] http://libre.adacore.com/tools/gnat-gpl-edition/faq/#licensing http://libre.adacore.com/tools/gnat-gpl-edition/faq/#licensi...

pjmlp 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.
  - hga 12y ago
    A myth with a kernel of truth, and a licencing situation that's in truth a bit complicated, means there's significantly more "friction" involved with a decision to use GNAT, and therefore to even begin thinking about messing with Ada or SPARK. As I note in another posting in this subtread, that not a good way of "doing business", and can do nothing but suppress interest in and use of Ada or SPARK. E.g. I have every reason to believe you and the others commenting on this, but I'm going to have to confirm for myself that this is correct.
  - copx 12y ago
    >You're doing harm by spreading misinformation. Blame AdaCore. I based my statement on the information on their website [1]. They certainly try to convince people that you have to buy GNAT Pro if you want to build non-GPL compatible software. Based on the other comments here, it seems it is actually possible to use GNAT, with an alternative FSF runtime, to build non-GPL compatible software without a license. Great, however AdaCore certainly likes to keep quiet about that possibility (for understandable reasons). Also as a potential user I would be worried about the quality of said runtime, given that it probably has no serious users and very little manpower behind it. [1] http://libre.adacore.com/tools/gnat-gpl-edition/faq/#licensing http://libre.adacore.com/tools/gnat-gpl-edition/faq/#licensi...