6 ms·

As I wrote to someone else: Why require that companies use a specific programming language instead of requiring that the end product is good? > And the F35 and

by skepti 9mo ago

As I wrote to someone else: Why require that companies use a specific programming language instead of requiring that the end product is good? > And the F35 and America's combat readiness would be in a better place today with Ada instead of C++. What is the evidence for this? Companies selling Ada products would almost certainly agree, since they have a horse in the race. Ada does not automatically lead to better, more robust, safer or fully correct software. Your line of argument is dangerous and dishonest, as real life regrettably shows.[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_flight_V88 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_flight_V88 > The failure has become known as one of the most infamous and expensive software bugs in history.[2] The failure resulted in a loss of more than US$370 million.[3] > The launch failure brought the high risks associated with complex computing systems to the attention of the general public, politicians, and executives, resulting in increased support for research on ensuring the reliability of safety-critical systems. The subsequent automated analysis of the Ariane code (written in Ada) was the first example of large-scale static code analysis by abstract interpretation.[9]

zeroc8 9mo ago
Ada and especially Spark makes it a whole lot easier to produce correct software. That doesn't mean it automatically leads to better software. The programming language is just a small piece of the puzzle. But an important one.
- skepti2 9mo ago
  > Ada and especially Spark makes it a whole lot easier to produce correct software. Relative to what? There are formal verification tools for other languages. I have heard Ada/SPARK is good, but I do not know the veracity of that. And Ada companies promoting Ada have horses in the race. And Ada didn't prevent the Ada code in Ariane 5 from being a disaster. > The programming language is just a small piece of the puzzle. But an important one. 100% true, but the parent of the original post that he agreed with said: > And the F35 and America's combat readiness would be in a better place today with Ada instead of C++. What is the proof for that, especially considering events like Ariane 5? And Ada arguably has technical and non-technical drawbacks relative to many other languages. When I tried Ada some weeks ago for a tiny example, I found it cumbersome in some ways. Is the syntax worse and more verbose than even C++? Maybe that is just a learning thing, though. Even with a mandate, Ada did not catch on.
  - serf 9mo ago
    >What is the proof for that, especially considering events like Ariane 5? Ariane 5 is a nice anti-ada catchphrase, but ada is probably the most used language for war machines in the United States. now the argument can be whether or not the US military is superior to X; but the fact that the largest military in the world is filled to the brim with warmachines running ada code is testament itself to the effectiveness of the language/dod/grant structure around the language. would it be better off in c++? I don't know about that one way or the other , but it's silly pretend ada isn't successful.
    - skepti2 9mo ago
      But Ada had for a number of years a mandate to require its usage [0]. That should have been an extreme competitive advantage. And even then, C++ is still used these days for some US military projects, like F-35. Though I don't know whether the F-35 is successful or not, if it is not, that could be an argument against C++. Ada is almost non-existent outside its niche. The main companies arguing for Ada appear to be the ones selling Ada services, meaning they have a horse in the race. I barely have any experience at all with Ada. My main impression is that it, like C++, is very old. [0]: https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/16710265/dod-officials-eye-scrapping-mandate-to-use-ada-programming https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/167... > The Defense Department`s chief of computers, Emmett Paige Jr., is recommending a rescission of the DOD`s mandate to use the Ada programming language for real-time, mission-critical weapons and information systems.
      - galangalalgol 9mo ago
        Poking around it looks like ada is actually the minority now. Everything current is either transitioning to c++ or started that way. The really old but still used stuff is often written in weird languages like jovial or in assembly.
        p_l 9mo ago
        Essentially the story of DoD mandates goes down to everyone getting waivers all the time and nuking the mandate.

by skepti 9mo ago

zeroc8 9mo ago

Ada and especially Spark makes it a whole lot easier to produce correct software. That doesn't mean it automatically leads to better software. The programming language is just a small piece of the puzzle. But an important one.

skepti2 9mo ago
> Ada and especially Spark makes it a whole lot easier to produce correct software. Relative to what? There are formal verification tools for other languages. I have heard Ada/SPARK is good, but I do not know the veracity of that. And Ada companies promoting Ada have horses in the race. And Ada didn't prevent the Ada code in Ariane 5 from being a disaster. > The programming language is just a small piece of the puzzle. But an important one. 100% true, but the parent of the original post that he agreed with said: > And the F35 and America's combat readiness would be in a better place today with Ada instead of C++. What is the proof for that, especially considering events like Ariane 5? And Ada arguably has technical and non-technical drawbacks relative to many other languages. When I tried Ada some weeks ago for a tiny example, I found it cumbersome in some ways. Is the syntax worse and more verbose than even C++? Maybe that is just a learning thing, though. Even with a mandate, Ada did not catch on.
- serf 9mo ago
  >What is the proof for that, especially considering events like Ariane 5? Ariane 5 is a nice anti-ada catchphrase, but ada is probably the most used language for war machines in the United States. now the argument can be whether or not the US military is superior to X; but the fact that the largest military in the world is filled to the brim with warmachines running ada code is testament itself to the effectiveness of the language/dod/grant structure around the language. would it be better off in c++? I don't know about that one way or the other , but it's silly pretend ada isn't successful.
  - skepti2 9mo ago
    But Ada had for a number of years a mandate to require its usage [0]. That should have been an extreme competitive advantage. And even then, C++ is still used these days for some US military projects, like F-35. Though I don't know whether the F-35 is successful or not, if it is not, that could be an argument against C++. Ada is almost non-existent outside its niche. The main companies arguing for Ada appear to be the ones selling Ada services, meaning they have a horse in the race. I barely have any experience at all with Ada. My main impression is that it, like C++, is very old. [0]: https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/16710265/dod-officials-eye-scrapping-mandate-to-use-ada-programming https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/167... > The Defense Department`s chief of computers, Emmett Paige Jr., is recommending a rescission of the DOD`s mandate to use the Ada programming language for real-time, mission-critical weapons and information systems.
    - galangalalgol 9mo ago
      Poking around it looks like ada is actually the minority now. Everything current is either transitioning to c++ or started that way. The really old but still used stuff is often written in weird languages like jovial or in assembly.
      - p_l 9mo ago
        Essentially the story of DoD mandates goes down to everyone getting waivers all the time and nuking the mandate.