Re: meaningfully/compellingly "advertising" Ada on StackOverflow

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:22:17 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Luke A. Guest writes:
> > The aim is to see how languages stack up. By using the standard
> > containers with their anti-tampering and other checks, you would be
> > hobbling Ada in this case.
> 
> Ummph, the anti-tampering and other checks are part of Ada's safety
> which is its main compelling feature.  If you turn them off then Ada no
> longer brings any benefit compared with unsafe languages.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing, up to a point.  Perhaps the maintainer of that repository can be persuaded that Ada deserves 2 rows for 2 different implementation tracks:
1) one design with full-fledged safety
and
2) one design with no-holds-barred anything-goes-that's-legal unchecked_*-features-galore pursuant to speed-of-execution.

It would be interesting not only comparing those 2 rows to other corresponding safe or unsafe languages, but also to each other:  Ada-purist versus Ada-ecumenical.  He seems to be emphasizing some definition of “naïve” though.  One or the other of these dual tracks for Ada might fly in the face of his definition of “naïve”.