Re: Ada Successor Language

[ric.wai88@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 11:31:14 AM UTC-4, Lucretia wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 June 2018 16:22:34 UTC+1, ric....@gmail.com  wrote:
> 
> > I can't understand why you're here. If you think you've got such a great idea, go build it. I have no more to contribute to this discussion - I've got to get to work.
> 
> Because I like the language, but there are issues with it too, to say there aren't is to bury your head in the sand.

*Sigh* Alright, you baited me just enough with that one.

I've overseen the development, deployment, and maintenance of very large, distributed, high-availability cloud-native enterprise systems, exclusively in Ada 2012.

We've used just about every single feature of the language in this. We've got hundreds of packages, and prevalent re-use. We have had not one single bug in production, and no unplanned downtime. Testing took about 10% of the allotted time because of the lack of bugs.

Nothing in this world is perfect. But I have not encountered a single serious deficiency in Ada. Having trained quite a few people in Ada, and supervising teams, as well as personally contributing a large portion of the original codebase, I can tell you from direct experience that every so-called deficiency in Ada has actually been a reflection of a detractor's own personal short comings. I know that's harsh to say, but this is frankly a huge part of the problem here.

Ada is very different from other languages because it is probably the only one out there that was not written by programmers for programmers. This is why it gets hate. Making it more programmer friendly is not fixing it.

Yes, we need more compilers, and more than AdaCore. I'm working on that. I'm giving it my all.

But nothing gets my blood boiling more than talk of reinventing the wheel. There are more pressing problems in computing and software. There will never be a "perfect" language. We are making too many damn languages. This is not the real problem.