Ada is not foolproof though, and if you carelessly start to play with pointers you will lose sleep over the same kind of memory corruption errors (I must check Rust for precisely that reason).
Please do, it would be awesome if someone could debunk them and prove Ada to be superior after all their hot air :)
As for dev speed, the only place where you will slow down is designing thick bindings to C and C++ libs. Tedious isn't the word.
However, my personal dilemma would mostly be Ada vs Java; I avoid C/C++ if I can (there's too much of it anyway where I cannot choose).
Java is pretty bad, IMO, spaghetti code with all the patterns, really hard to follow.
Please do, it would be awesome if someone could debunk them and prove Ada to be superior after all their hot air :)
Hehe. Do you think though there is no substance there? From my superficial reads they get rid of a whole class of errors with the "ownership" idea. Although I don't really grasp the implications yet.
Java is pretty bad, IMO, spaghetti code with all the patterns, really hard to follow.
Certainly the lack of specifications are a step back from Ada. Interfaces mitigate it to some extent, although then one may get lost in the hierarchies; however the new shorthand notation for lambdas and reference functions for callbacks and single-method singletons goes a looong way in terms of local clarity and boilerplate reduction. I couldn't go back to Java 7. But then, that's also the merit of the tools, besides the language itself.
Anyway, I would consider Java instead of Ada mostly for reasons of libraries/community, rather than the language itself.
Hehe. Do you think though there is no substance there? From my superficial reads they get rid of a whole class of errors with the "ownership" idea. Although I don't really grasp the implications yet.
I have no idea, I've only really checked on the whole syntax of the language and it's not for me. But they do have this arrogance going on basically saying that everything should be rewritten in Rust and whenever you mention something they say "Rust has that" and then you find that it's in the library, not the language.
Anyway, I would consider Java instead of Ada mostly for reasons of libraries/community, rather than the language itself.
This is why we need more people working on libs for Ada, so people pick Ada rather than something else.
As for the tooling/libs on Java, yeah, they have loads, but Sun paid universities and company's millions for them to use the language. Plus, forcing everything into a class is coming back to bite them, this is why I think so many people are jumping on the FP bandwagon, there'll come a time when people think forcing everything into a function is bad.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Please do, it would be awesome if someone could debunk them and prove Ada to be superior after all their hot air :)
As for dev speed, the only place where you will slow down is designing thick bindings to C and C++ libs. Tedious isn't the word.
Java is pretty bad, IMO, spaghetti code with all the patterns, really hard to follow.
Hehe. Do you think though there is no substance there? From my superficial reads they get rid of a whole class of errors with the "ownership" idea. Although I don't really grasp the implications yet.
Certainly the lack of specifications are a step back from Ada. Interfaces mitigate it to some extent, although then one may get lost in the hierarchies; however the new shorthand notation for lambdas and reference functions for callbacks and single-method singletons goes a looong way in terms of local clarity and boilerplate reduction. I couldn't go back to Java 7. But then, that's also the merit of the tools, besides the language itself.
Anyway, I would consider Java instead of Ada mostly for reasons of libraries/community, rather than the language itself.
I have no idea, I've only really checked on the whole syntax of the language and it's not for me. But they do have this arrogance going on basically saying that everything should be rewritten in Rust and whenever you mention something they say "Rust has that" and then you find that it's in the library, not the language.
This is why we need more people working on libs for Ada, so people pick Ada rather than something else.
As for the tooling/libs on Java, yeah, they have loads, but Sun paid universities and company's millions for them to use the language. Plus, forcing everything into a class is coming back to bite them, this is why I think so many people are jumping on the FP bandwagon, there'll come a time when people think forcing everything into a function is bad.