From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: a new language, designed for safety !
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:28:33 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <ln6tlg$1vc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <lmj8s6$hhp$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1402308235.2520.153.camel@pascal.home.net> <85ioo9yukk.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:28:33 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="e458ff8b81bc0c159989eb0e36c6e372";
	logging-data="2028"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qZkrk5BtppwXv7vihiVZXgPtPCQf9cI4="
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (VMS/Multinet)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yqfhjt4LWktlMadnMfPeDCO1r7Q=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20195
Date: 2014-06-10T12:28:33+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2014-06-10, Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
> Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes:
>
>> I would add to this thread that we do not need a new language for safety
>> I think Ada can do that... 
>
> Can anyone comment on why Apple didn't just use Ada?
>

>From a technical viewpoint, Ada is a great language to use, with lots
of features at various levels designed to produce robust and reliable
code. In an ideal world, the use of Ada would be widespread.

>From a practical and pragmatic viewpoint however, Ada is a poor language
to use.

Jeffrey Carter said it best when he stated that only 2% of programmers
have an engineering mindset. I dispute that 2% figure (I think it's
probably closer to 20%-30%) but the point stands. Ada is designed for
engineers; those who write code in other ways (ie: the majority of
Apple's customers) would probably find Ada too stifling.

This is also one of the reasons why we don't see a large Ada uptake
in other areas even though GNAT has been freely available for years.

(The other reasons include the restricted set of host and target
platforms for Ada when compared to C and the fact the nicely
pre-packaged ACT version of GNAT is licenced under the GPL instead
of the GMGPL.)

For general programming for which C would be used, if you want to get
your typical C progammer using something safer than C, I still think
my Oberon-14 idea represents the general path to take: create a
"safer", not "safe", language with some of the basic Ada concepts
transplanted into it and which is easy for a C programmer to learn.

Such a language must be _easy_ to port to a wide range of host and
target platforms and you must be able to replace existing library
code written in C with code written in your new language without
disturbing the rest of the application.

Once you have them exposed to a "safer" programming mindset, _then_
you can introduce them to Ada for the bigger stuff.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world