Giving Ada a Chance

I think the thing that's been under-sold in Ada is the way you can get so much at compile time as properties of things, like, you can say "this type counts between 1 and 30" and then later refer to "the largest value of this type" as a loop bound, say, in a way that won't break if you later set the maximum to 40. And hides the fact it's implemented as an unboxed primitive integer.

Apply to nVidia or Toyota then, they have new projects.

> the Lovecraftian hieroglyphics of Fortran’s various eldritch incarnations.

This is one of the best lines I've read in awhile, gave me a good chuckle. Thanks for that.

>I get what you're saying, but learning C teaches you about the C memory model instead of "real machines". No. C doesn't do that, not at all; see: https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3212479 If you want to get to the down and dirty, and quickly, without nearly all the "Gotcha!" inherit in C, FORTH is the way to go.

>C was designed for portability across different architectures Absolute bullshit. This is a claim that has been going on for far too long, the whole "portable assembler" myth. IEEE694-1985 is a portable assembler, hell read "Using a high level language as a cross assembler" ( DOI: 10.1145/954269.954277 ), for that matter.

>and, believe it or not, was considered high-level and abstract at one time. The "gotcha!"-factor was increasingly ignored when I was learning about computer languages, but I had an advantage in having my first language be Turbo Pascal and self-taught using the manual and compiler.

> But I agree that learning C is valuable because I believe that learning about manual memory management is valuable. That's doable much easier in Ada, Forth, or BLISS. C is becoming more and more of a liability, to the point I would say that it has no real value in any professional setting, and an incredibly limited one in the academic.

> The so-called "Ada comb" structure that is used for packages, subprograms, and even declare blocks makes it easy to find what you are looking for because it makes the source code more regular.

"Declare" blocks are a PITA. I don't mean the declaration part in the subprogram example you quoted (that's fine), but having to use explicit "declare" blocks to create new variables in the scope of a loop or a conditional. You can't just declare variables after the introducing keyword (then, loop, ...), possibly between it and a "begin" that would be fused to be come a part of the loop/conditional syntax. You have to use a separate "declare" block, with its "begin" and its own "end;", and then you still have to have the "end loop;"/"end if;" of the loop/conditional itself.

Illustration.

A normal conditional:

---------

if A = 5 then

  B := 7;

  C := A + 1;

end if;

---------

What you'd think you could at least do (it would already be a bit heavy, but by Ada standard verbosity it would be a good and smooth fit):

---------

if A = 5 then

declare

  D : natural;

begin

  B := 7;

  D := 1;

  C := A + D;

end if;

---------

What you actually need to do:

---------

if A = 5 then

  declare

    D : natural;

  begin

    B := 7;

    D := 1;

    C := A + D;

  end;

end if;

---------

So you waste one indentation level more each time you add one such declare block. Talking about combs, this get hairy quickly even when you have simply a few nested loops/conditionals.

Also, the "end;" of the "declare" block is not an "end declare;" or "end block;" like you have "end if;" and "end loop;". So that make it a bit harder again to know where you are when you are closing your blocks/loops/conditional.

Then you can add a label, but that make it even heavier (and good luck finding a clever name for the block label each time). Not sure there exists a good solution to place the (opening) label. And the closing label comes at the same place a closing keyword, which may be considered a bit confusing.

---------

if A = 5 then

  myblock:

  declare

    D : natural;

  begin

    B := 7;

    D := 1;

    C := A + D;

  end myblock;

end if;

---------

or

---------

if A = 5 then

  myblock: declare

    D : natural;

  begin

    B := 7;

    D := 1;

    C := A + D;

  end myblock;

end if;

---------

or

---------

if A = 5 then

  myblock:

    declare

      D : natural;

    begin

      B := 7;

      D := 1;

      C := A + D;

    end myblock;

end if;

---------

The last one, which wastes not only 1, but 2 indentations levels(!), and even worse, creates an indentation gap in the end, happens to be the recommended style...