Re: If not Ada, what else...

[David Botton <david@botton.com>]

> That's an interesting topic. I don't know D (I have prejudices against languages that use curly brackets). In what areas is ahead Ada and in what key areas is crippled?

D is lacking - #1 no way to switch braces to begin and end :), the ability to create new ranged types no via OO. It does have a concept of types above C and C++ but no where near Ada's. As an extension of that it can only create 0 indexed arrays, but you can use enumerations, so some support. There are other issues but mostly revolve around lacks in terms of defining types and as a direct result compile time checks related to those lacks. It's way ahead of C/C++, Java, etc. and there are ways to create types in OO but then all checks become dynamic.

D is ahead - 3 true open source (no virused runtimes) implementations (dmd, lcd2, gdc), phobos (D's runtime) is incredibly rich, functional, parallel computing, concurrency, etc. Ada's annexes are primitive in comparison. Easier interfacing with C. Community support, resources, etc. etc. dub - package management and build system, etc. built in unit testing, better syntax for pre and post conditions, and tons more.

A few tweaks to D's type system and not sure Ada would have anything all that unique or beneficial at all.

> Well, Nim is still immature and a little buggy. By the way, Rust author has abandoned Rust and turned into Nim. An .

Goes to show you both languages no more than a fad.

The author of Rust went to nim because of C output since he is working on an OS. BTW, D has already successfully been used for creating OSes, etc.

> Well, Nim is not a Python like language at all.

Oh my, it was created to be a compilable Python from the start.....

David Botton