Ada, its design, and the language that built the languages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_iAPX_432

Ada is "verbose" in that it has fairly rigorous type specification. It was verbose in comparison to languages that had weak or primitive typing. A lot of the "bureaucracy" in the language is being very specific about types to catch bugs.

Ada 83 did have a problem in that it lacked [interfaces]. This could sometimes limit code reuse.

Ada was designed to be "readable" but so was Pascal and many other languages (and, more recently for instance, Python). "Readability" in those days mainly meant preferring keywords over operators and allowing for infix notation with proper order-of-operations.

The concept of iAPX 432 had been finalized before Ada won the Department of Defense competition.

iAPX 432 was designed based on the idea that such an architecture would be more suitable for high level languages, without having at that time Ada or any other specific language in mind.

The iAPX designers thought that the most important feature that would make the processor better suited for high-level languages would be to not allow the direct addressing of memory but to control the memory accesses in such a way that would prevent any accesses outside the intended memory object.

The designers have made many other mistakes, but an important mistake was that the object-based memory-access control that they implemented was far too complex in comparison with what could be implemented efficiently in the available technology. Thus they could not implement everything in one chip and they had to split the CPU in multiple chips, which created additional challenges.

Eventually, the "32-bit" iAPX432 was much slower than the 16-bit 80286, despite the fact that 80286 had also been contaminated by the ideas of 432, so it had a much too complicated memory protection mechanism, which has never been fully used in any relevant commercial product, being replaced by the much simpler paged memory of 80386.

The failure of 432 and the partial failure of 286 (a very large part of the chip implemented features that have never been used in IBM PC/AT and compatibles) are not failures of Ada, but failures of a plan to provide complex memory access protections in hardware, instead of simpler methods based on page access rights and/or comparisons with access limits under software control.

Now there are attempts to move again some parts of the memory access control to hardware, like ARM Cheri, but I do not like them. I prefer simpler methods, like the conditional traps of IBM POWER, which allow a cheaper checking of out-of-bounds accesses without any of the disadvantages of the approaches like Cheri, which need special pointers, which consume resources permanently, not only where they are needed.