Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airbus Chooses GNAT Pro Ada for Development of Unmanned Aerial System

manufacturing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 203 posts

Re: Airbus Chooses GNAT Pro Ada for Development of Unmanned Aerial System

#161

Post by [deleted] »

NationalPark wrote: post #102
_1gwx wrote: post #6

Not an expert in ADA, but after playing around with it for a while, I don't know why this language doesn't get more praise. It seems to solve a lot of the memory problems Rust solves, albeit in a different way. Its first-class arrays and strong type system seem to go a long way into not having to deal with pointers often, for example. These "features" today would likely be considered part of "a better C", except that…

Compare the Ada getting started page to the Rust getting started page: https://www.adacore.com/get-started vs https://www.rust-lang.org/learn/get-started Ada asks you to compare four versions of GNAT and prominently displays "request pricing" buttons. Rust gives you a compiler, a package manager, some IDEs with Rust integrations, and a link to the Rust Book. In point of fact, Ada has quite a bit of historical baggage…

[deleted]

Re: Airbus Chooses GNAT Pro Ada for Development of Unmanned Aerial System

#162

Post by Jtsummers »

foerbert wrote: post #158
geofft wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ada doesn't have compile-time-safe dynamic memory allocation and deallocation (i.e., tracking a pointer so that you know statically that it's no longer used elsewhere in the function that frees it). Rust does it through the lifetime system, which is based on Cyclone, which long postdates Ada. The usual alternatives are to statically allocate all your memory, to convince yourself it's safe to use Unchecked_Deallocatio…

I'm not super knowledgeable about Rust, but I have tried poking at it a few times, so... you know. Rust seems to be extremely focused on memory safety. Meanwhile Ada is much more focused on correctness in general. Restricting the discussion to simply memory safety ignores, well, most of anything that might be programmed. Ada also has more memory safety options than people tend to talk about. As others have mentioned,…

I like Rust, but my interest in it dwindled when I realized the safety/correctness focus was almost exclusively on memory safety, with regard to its "value add". Ada's type system offering things like custom, incompatible, integer ranges (even if they cover the same range, cross-type assignment requires explicit conversion) was the safety I needed for work. Memory safety is great, and a worthwhile goal, but was not the thing holding back (most) of the projects I've participated in (that said, memory safety was a notable issue in one adjacent project, I was not on it but memory safety and concurrency was the primary source of bugs for them).

Re: Airbus Chooses GNAT Pro Ada for Development of Unmanned Aerial System

#163

Post by marktangotango »

nraynaud wrote: post #47
_1gwx wrote: post #6

Not an expert in ADA, but after playing around with it for a while, I don't know why this language doesn't get more praise. It seems to solve a lot of the memory problems Rust solves, albeit in a different way. Its first-class arrays and strong type system seem to go a long way into not having to deal with pointers often, for example. These "features" today would likely be considered part of "a better C", except that…

the free version of gcc gnat is garbage, it randomly crashes during compilation, the timers are based on a subdivision of systick on STM32 (good luck for accuracy or high frequency). So basically you need to already be wealthy to just dip into it (buy a licence of Adacore and a supported expensive aero grade MCU test kit). I stopped messing with it 5 years ago.

Does anyone have more recent experience? Is this still the case?

Re: Airbus Chooses GNAT Pro Ada for Development of Unmanned Aerial System

#164

Post by Rochus »

igouy wrote: post #143
Rochus wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, if small commercial developers cannot use the language without paying massive fees, you might as well forget any popularity Have you read my answer? There is no reason why you couldn't use FSF GNAT or GPS in closed-source projects. > Heck, you couldn't even use Ada for non-GPL open source programs. Why not? The GPL GNAT with RLE allows you to use any licence with your application, whether closed or open-source.…

> There is no reason why you couldn't use FSF GNAT or GPS in closed-source projects. But there is Fear Uncertainty & Doubt.

Although we have the Enlightenment behind us, there is still superstition. There is nothing I can do about that.

Re: Airbus Chooses GNAT Pro Ada for Development of Unmanned Aerial System

#165

Post by Rochus »

protomyth wrote: post #144
Rochus wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, if small commercial developers cannot use the language without paying massive fees, you might as well forget any popularity Have you read my answer? There is no reason why you couldn't use FSF GNAT or GPS in closed-source projects. > Heck, you couldn't even use Ada for non-GPL open source programs. Why not? The GPL GNAT with RLE allows you to use any licence with your application, whether closed or open-source.…

First the last, There were always free ST versions as far as I can remember. The "little guy" could e.g. use "Little Smalltalk" by Budd which appeared before 1987. No one could write a commercial program with Little Smalltalk. Love the book, but the implementation is not going to work. Heck, Squeak could not do a program that looked anything like a real Windows or Mac program. Maybe we're talking past each other but…

Well, if you were willing to spend 60$ you could buy a Smalltalk package suited for commercial applications which looked somehow like Windows. But that's not the topic here anyway.

> Maybe we're talking past each other but the IDE says the community edition is only authorized for GPL software, every other edition is big bucks.

Do not let this mislead you. The software is available under GPL. That is all you need to know. And GPL allows you to use the software for any purpose. Maybe I should mention that I studied law for two years and then had one more year of lectures in patent and license contract law (see my profile for more information).

Re: Airbus Chooses GNAT Pro Ada for Development of Unmanned Aerial System

#166

Post by igouy »

Rochus wrote: post #164
igouy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reason why you couldn't use FSF GNAT or GPS in closed-source projects. But there is Fear Uncertainty & Doubt.

Although we have the Enlightenment behind us, there is still superstition. There is nothing I can do about that.

You inform those who are open to being better informed.

Re: Airbus Chooses GNAT Pro Ada for Development of Unmanned Aerial System

#167

Post by Rochus »

foerbert wrote: post #155
Rochus wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not up to date. Last time I checked (about five years ago) the FSF GNAT was about a year behind AdaCore GPL GNAT. Maybe someone else has more recent information.

At least as of a year or two ago, AdaCore seemed to be putting in more effort to shore up the differences between FSF and GPL GNAT.

Do you have evidence/references of this?

After all, FSF GNAT was already compatible with Ada 2012 at that time. And a company that makes large investments in software using Ada undoubtedly needs support and will not shy away from the comparatively low additional costs for licenses and maintenance contracts in its own interest. But it is important that the technology is absolutely free for small companies and people who are simply interested in the technology.

Re: Airbus Chooses GNAT Pro Ada for Development of Unmanned Aerial System

#168

Post by Rochus »

igouy wrote: post #166
Rochus wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although we have the Enlightenment behind us, there is still superstition. There is nothing I can do about that.

You inform those who are open to being better informed.

Well, obviously with moderate success ;-)

Re: Airbus Chooses GNAT Pro Ada for Development of Unmanned Aerial System

#169

Post by protomyth »

igouy wrote: post #154
protomyth wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which quickly became Visual Smalltalk Enterprise, which you can ask various companies about how that went commercially.

Factually, October 22 1989 — "… an OS/2 version of the Smalltalk language, Smalltalk V/PM … The $500 product is designed to cut the time it takes to prototype user-interface-intensive applications for Presentation Manager." https://www.cbronline.com/news/digitalk_has_first_compiled_v...

OS/2 didn't move the needle for anyone. Smalltalk V evolved into an unsupported, expensive Smalltalk. Smalltalk never had its Turbo moment.

Re: Airbus Chooses GNAT Pro Ada for Development of Unmanned Aerial System

#170

Post by foerbert »

Rochus wrote: post #167
foerbert wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least as of a year or two ago, AdaCore seemed to be putting in more effort to shore up the differences between FSF and GPL GNAT.

Do you have evidence/references of this? After all, FSF GNAT was already compatible with Ada 2012 at that time. And a company that makes large investments in software using Ada undoubtedly needs support and will not shy away from the comparatively low additional costs for licenses and maintenance contracts in its own interest. But it is important that the technology is absolutely free for small companies and people w…

Nothing concrete I can point you to offhand. An AdaCore employee popped up in the community (freenode #ada, probably comp.lang.ada too) and started talking about it. I know several people pointed him to differences that were later addressed, or he had already tackled.
Post reply on HN