OneWingedShark

10 ms·

61.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
I think there are certain core-functionalities that could benefit from being written in SPARK -- things like the core of the OS, common networking facilities/network stack (the IRONSIDES DNS is a good step in that direction).
62.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
> Not much of a stretch with C, really - there's a reason its used to write operating systems C is a terrible language for Operating Systems. No modules, weak-typing, and full of gotchas and pitfalls — plus, it's answers like t
63.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
> Can any of other language do that? Ada can. The biggest Ada vendor actively pushes Ada-as-an-embedded-language, which is nice in some ways, but in others it can make it seem like Ada is only for embedded.
64.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
If it were up to me to design curricula for CS, I'd do the entire thing in Ada, with the exceptions of "Data-Structures & Algorithms" being in Lisp and "Machine Architecture" in Forth — both of these classes wou
65.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
> Build a toolset that yells at you when you want to do something stupid/dangerous. Why do you think I'm a fan of Ada? (And looking to get into VHDL, too.)
66.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
Go. Still Go.
67.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
Interesting. I wonder how nice a PL/SQL & Ada combined environment/IDE could be.
68.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
> There's nothing wrong with pulling in the `libc` dependency. Yes, there is. Not only is dependency transitive: you now depend on everything libc depends on — but now you're depending on the correctness AND properties of the
69.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
>When I learned Ada (blog post somewhere in this thread) I was pretty shocked by how many more runtime checks it had than Rust does, overall. Rust usually checks things at compile time. That's perhaps an oversimplification; elsewher
70.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
Yes. Because the alternative is idiotic, hard to read BS like fn. The problem is that "fn" is optimizing the WRONG things: not only is your code going to be read more than it is ever written, but this abbreviated form is actively
71.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
> if this post had been three days later I'd have been able to link the finished product here right now. Well, that was 5 days ago, which means you CAN post the link! (I'd like to see it, quite a lot.)
72.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
> What has stopped people from creating a standard with no undefined behavior? It's a lot of work. > Is such a thing impossible? Have people done it? It's possible; Ada has a really good take -- in that standard, there'
73.
by OneWingedShark 7y ago
If you have GCC or G++, simply use the `-fdump-ada-spec` command-line option; done. (see: https://www.adacore.com/gems/gem-59 )
74.
by OneWingedShark 8y ago
Well, there's a bit of a problem in how you're qualifying things. For example, certain things that aren't obviously handled by the type-system might be. One example would be loops and off-by-one errors. For the case of For-lo
75.
by OneWingedShark 8y ago
http://learnadanow.com is done by the same guy that does GetAdaNow.com The Ada Information Clearinghouse has a section for learning Ada: http://www.adaic.org/learn/ There's a toy LISP I did as/for