21–30 of 72 posts
I know the history of why Ada failed, but it always seemed like such a neat language that shouldn't have failed. It seemed like it should have been the standard for a lot of desktop applications for the 90's and 2000's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.adapower.com/index.php?Command=Class&ClassID=Advo... Specifically, I think these three paragraphs near the end are critical: > I'm reading a great book now called Why People Believe Weird Things, by Micheal Shermer, in which the author explains what rational thinking is, and how skepticism is a process. Basically, people believe something because that want to, not because of any scientific arguments you ma…
"Am I out of touch? No it's the children who are wrong." This argument eats itself. It's just an accusation that people who disagree with you are irrational, and their arguments are in bad faith. It's not a valid argument because it doesn't even depend on any context or facts of the actual discussion which he's using it. It's the definition of cope. In the end, even if we can't be sure why Ada failed, it failed spect…
> every single OS was written in C.
No, they weren't. In fact, some were written in Algol-like languages such as Pascal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Am I out of touch? No it's the children who are wrong." This argument eats itself. It's just an accusation that people who disagree with you are irrational, and their arguments are in bad faith. It's not a valid argument because it doesn't even depend on any context or facts of the actual discussion which he's using it. It's the definition of cope. In the end, even if we can't be sure why Ada failed, it failed spect…
This claim is false (when considered in context of the 1980s when the first Ada spec was released): > every single OS was written in C. No, they weren't. In fact, some were written in Algol-like languages such as Pascal.
So Pascal had one mainstream OS for about 10 years, most of which time it was being phased out.
I know the history of why Ada failed, but it always seemed like such a neat language that shouldn't have failed. It seemed like it should have been the standard for a lot of desktop applications for the 90's and 2000's.
Failed what? In its domain, it succeeded in its goals: a high reliability platform for aerospace, defense, and other mission critical domains. It was mandated by the US DoD for all software in the nineties and used in Airbus avionics and aboard the ISS, etc. Its syntax and concepts were considered solid and so was selected as the basis of the VHDL hardware description language, also successful in its domain.
Vanishingly little was written in Ada as waivers were too easy to get.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This claim is false (when considered in context of the 1980s when the first Ada spec was released): > every single OS was written in C. No, they weren't. In fact, some were written in Algol-like languages such as Pascal.
The only exception I can think of is early versions of mac os, which was still primarily assembly. Even then i recall people went out of their way to use C despite needing pascal calling convention for system calls. They basically immediately regretted using pascal and started a march towards C and basically gave up on pascal before the powerpc. So Pascal had one mainstream OS for about 10 years, most of which time i…
Your first claim: Every OS was written in C. Your new claim: Most were written in assembly.
Pick a position. If most were written in assembly then it would not have had any impact on the adoption of Ada so why make the original claim?
I would respond to your question but you substantially edited your comment and removed the question. I also notice you removed the claim in your edit about most OSes being written in assembly in the 80s. Obnoxious way to communicate with people, altering your comments while they're replying so their replies look like random comments.
I know the history of why Ada failed, but it always seemed like such a neat language that shouldn't have failed. It seemed like it should have been the standard for a lot of desktop applications for the 90's and 2000's.
I am curious, knowing that history, why do you think that it shouldn't have? I have my own thoughts that I'd be happy to share, but I don't want to spoil your opinion with them. (This goes for basically anyone who's interested in talking about it, I think it's a fascinating bit of history.)
I know the history of why Ada failed, but it always seemed like such a neat language that shouldn't have failed. It seemed like it should have been the standard for a lot of desktop applications for the 90's and 2000's.
Failed what? In its domain, it succeeded in its goals: a high reliability platform for aerospace, defense, and other mission critical domains. It was mandated by the US DoD for all software in the nineties and used in Airbus avionics and aboard the ISS, etc. Its syntax and concepts were considered solid and so was selected as the basis of the VHDL hardware description language, also successful in its domain.
C and C++ are still used pretty frequently. I wouldn't say that they failed, but if someone wrote an application in Ada in 2025, I would find that a bit anachronistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only exception I can think of is early versions of mac os, which was still primarily assembly. Even then i recall people went out of their way to use C despite needing pascal calling convention for system calls. They basically immediately regretted using pascal and started a march towards C and basically gave up on pascal before the powerpc. So Pascal had one mainstream OS for about 10 years, most of which time i…
> which os was written in Pascal? most were written in assembly in that era, you are talking about some obscure research or toy. Your first claim: Every OS was written in C. Your new claim: Most were written in assembly. Pick a position. If most were written in assembly then it would not have had any impact on the adoption of Ada so why make the original claim? I would respond to your question but you substantially e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am curious, knowing that history, why do you think that it shouldn't have? I have my own thoughts that I'd be happy to share, but I don't want to spoil your opinion with them. (This goes for basically anyone who's interested in talking about it, I think it's a fascinating bit of history.)
I just feel like it emphasized safety in a way that C doesn't, while still being fairly high performance. It always seemed like a neat language.
I wouldn't disagree with either of those things at a high level, but I think in practice, the details matter, and it's more of those details that led to the present state than the high level goals, which certainly were laudable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Failed what? In its domain, it succeeded in its goals: a high reliability platform for aerospace, defense, and other mission critical domains. It was mandated by the US DoD for all software in the nineties and used in Airbus avionics and aboard the ISS, etc. Its syntax and concepts were considered solid and so was selected as the basis of the VHDL hardware description language, also successful in its domain.
> was mandated by the US DoD Vanishingly little was written in Ada as waivers were too easy to get.
So, wherever these waivers were, they certainly weren't in those spaces.
1 - https://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf
2 - https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2025/02/f-35-programs-...