If you program, you should read this piece.
-
@bsdphk I'm far too young to have experienced it myself in person, but to my understanding all these cool features introduced a complexity which was hard to manage in the 80s. Unfortunately I'm drawing a blank on my source, sorry about that, it's a couple of years since I've learned a bit of Ada (because these features *are* cool and ought to be available *today*).
Also capitalism happens, I guess the availability of a DoD language was less than stellar, and if it was available, it was probably really expensive? This is a side-effect of all these certification-heavy domains I know, stuff is *really* expensive.
Also, the wider industry tends to value development speed over anything, lest the adoption of all those dynamic languages. Just another way of externalizing costs to the public. -
@bsdphk Well that's thoroughly depressing. All this time, we could have had nice things, but because modern language designers ignored Ada, our industry is still full of cowboys stuck in the wild west.
-
If you program, you should read this piece.
"Ada's successes — the aircraft that have not crashed, the railway signalling systems that have not failed, the missile guidance software that has not misguided — are invisible precisely because they are successes. The languages that failed visibly, in buffer overflows and null pointer exceptions and data races and security vulnerabilities, generated the discourse. [Ada did not]"
-
If you program, you should read this piece.
"Ada's successes — the aircraft that have not crashed, the railway signalling systems that have not failed, the missile guidance software that has not misguided — are invisible precisely because they are successes. The languages that failed visibly, in buffer overflows and null pointer exceptions and data races and security vulnerabilities, generated the discourse. [Ada did not]"
@bsdphk terrific essay. It would be nice if posts included dates. This looks from the footnotes to be 2024. Would also like to see more discussion of Swift. And who is this person anyway!?
-
If you program, you should read this piece.
"Ada's successes — the aircraft that have not crashed, the railway signalling systems that have not failed, the missile guidance software that has not misguided — are invisible precisely because they are successes. The languages that failed visibly, in buffer overflows and null pointer exceptions and data races and security vulnerabilities, generated the discourse. [Ada did not]"
@bsdphk the opposite of typescript in every way
-
@bsdphk the opposite of typescript in every way
@bsdphk on closer examination this was clearly AI-written so I will have to find another avenue to learn about Ada through
-
@bsdphk Dijkstra is rolling in his grave and I can’t stop giggling.
I have to admit that I never thought I would see anyone attempt to salvage Ada’s reputation after the way it imploded at the DOD.
Thanks for sharing.
I think that's unfair ?
Everybody charged DoD 10x "because of Ada" - simply because they could get away with it, provided Ada didn't become mainstream.
The perverse incentives of military procurement is not in any way a relevant factor, when Judging a programming language, as programing language.
The point about everybody else converging on where they could have started 45 years ago is IMO, totally fair.
-
-
If you program, you should read this piece.
"Ada's successes — the aircraft that have not crashed, the railway signalling systems that have not failed, the missile guidance software that has not misguided — are invisible precisely because they are successes. The languages that failed visibly, in buffer overflows and null pointer exceptions and data races and security vulnerabilities, generated the discourse. [Ada did not]"
@bsdphk what railway signalling systems had software failures? they're tested to hell and back. do they mean commercial failure, where a system could not be implemented sufficiently quickly?
-
If you program, you should read this piece.
"Ada's successes — the aircraft that have not crashed, the railway signalling systems that have not failed, the missile guidance software that has not misguided — are invisible precisely because they are successes. The languages that failed visibly, in buffer overflows and null pointer exceptions and data races and security vulnerabilities, generated the discourse. [Ada did not]"
@bsdphk lots of memories — I was a systems programmer at NYU’s Courant Institute in the early 80s which produced the first working, validated Ada compiler and worked in support of that project (Ed Schonberg & Robert Dewar were the project leads/PIs).
It’s true that what’s old is new again…so many fundamental things keep getting reinvented. The old saw holds: “in other disciplines we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, in CS we stand on the toes of those who came before us.”
-
I think that's unfair ?
Everybody charged DoD 10x "because of Ada" - simply because they could get away with it, provided Ada didn't become mainstream.
The perverse incentives of military procurement is not in any way a relevant factor, when Judging a programming language, as programing language.
The point about everybody else converging on where they could have started 45 years ago is IMO, totally fair.
@bsdphk Ada was entirely the result of DOD procurement, intended to solve a DOD problem. Dijkstra, rightly, criticized the design process and the final language and his writing on the subject should be required reading.
Ada suffered from the same problem PL/1 did and was almost immediately fragmented into the infamous “profile” subsets that resulted in it failing to meet DOD requirements.
It was not a good language to start from, revisionist views notwithstanding.
-
-
If you program, you should read this piece.
"Ada's successes — the aircraft that have not crashed, the railway signalling systems that have not failed, the missile guidance software that has not misguided — are invisible precisely because they are successes. The languages that failed visibly, in buffer overflows and null pointer exceptions and data races and security vulnerabilities, generated the discourse. [Ada did not]"
@bsdphk this reads like pure AI slop BTW. Too much hand waving and inaccuracies. Looking at the top level just confirms the sloppiness https://www.iqiipi.com
-
-
@DesChips @pfriedma @bsdphk @whyrl Most launchers have had zero *software* failures though. Guidance of a space-launcher is not actually a hard problem, it can be fully simulated beforehand without much trouble. I believe some rockets, e.g. Japan's Lambda flew without any computer at all, using purely a timer to steer the thing.
-
If you program, you should read this piece.
"Ada's successes — the aircraft that have not crashed, the railway signalling systems that have not failed, the missile guidance software that has not misguided — are invisible precisely because they are successes. The languages that failed visibly, in buffer overflows and null pointer exceptions and data races and security vulnerabilities, generated the discourse. [Ada did not]"
@bsdphk There's a lot of, to put it politely, inaccuracy in that piece. Also it's clearly generated with or by AI. But this is the world we're in now, so get used to it. History being rewritten by the machines.
-
If you program, you should read this piece.
"Ada's successes — the aircraft that have not crashed, the railway signalling systems that have not failed, the missile guidance software that has not misguided — are invisible precisely because they are successes. The languages that failed visibly, in buffer overflows and null pointer exceptions and data races and security vulnerabilities, generated the discourse. [Ada did not]"
@bsdphk
When I was in the biz I constantly chafed at the hacker culture of celebrating indiciplined indecipherable code. Even the in the comments here I see the sneering attitude permeating. I have always disliked this intensely.Thanks for sharing this essay.
-
@pfriedma @bsdphk @whyrl
I was thinking it might be nice to use a language with Ada's checking features, but i don't know if i can stomach the C++-like exception semantics.The problem has always been that it completely destroys everyone's ability to reason about control flow. It's kinda glaring for a language that otherwise emphasizes the importance of provable correctness.
(Contrast with modern languages like Swift, where you're forced to annotate call sites that can possibly throw.)
-
@pfriedma @bsdphk @whyrl
I was thinking it might be nice to use a language with Ada's checking features, but i don't know if i can stomach the C++-like exception semantics.The problem has always been that it completely destroys everyone's ability to reason about control flow. It's kinda glaring for a language that otherwise emphasizes the importance of provable correctness.
(Contrast with modern languages like Swift, where you're forced to annotate call sites that can possibly throw.)
@pfriedma @bsdphk @whyrl
...and then on top of that, it's going to unwind the stack, and thereby destroy evidence that would be useful in locating the root cause of a bug, in the event of programming mistakes like null dereferences!?
https://learn.adacore.com/courses/intro-to-ada/chapters/exceptions.htmlI really hope there's a way to disable or alter this behavior and make it trap instead, so that the stack is preserved for debugging...?
(C++ unwinds the stack too, but (1) generally not on UB, and (2) we have sanitizers for UB.)
-
@pfriedma @bsdphk @whyrl
...and then on top of that, it's going to unwind the stack, and thereby destroy evidence that would be useful in locating the root cause of a bug, in the event of programming mistakes like null dereferences!?
https://learn.adacore.com/courses/intro-to-ada/chapters/exceptions.htmlI really hope there's a way to disable or alter this behavior and make it trap instead, so that the stack is preserved for debugging...?
(C++ unwinds the stack too, but (1) generally not on UB, and (2) we have sanitizers for UB.)
