text: 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  Ada looks pretty awkward to optimise. What's the merrits of this over C/C++?
  Its designers understand their creation. The C++ designers refused to believe until their faces were rubbed in the working code. If the designers don't understand their creation, what chance have mere users?
  There's no equivalent of the C++ FQA because there's no need for there to be.
  Quote from: tggzzz on June 21, 2016, 02:13:32 pmIts designers understand their creation. The C++ designers refused to believe until their faces were rubbed in the working code. If the designers don't understand their creation, what chance have mere users?The C++ language was designed to provide tools that could be a number of ways instead of only solving one specific purpose. This is why it supports multiple inheritance while many other languages do not. It wasn't about telling you, you must do OOP, or you must program one way. The downside is that it makes it even easier to be stuck in your ways and never learn something better. It also can easily be abused, but that is one of the tradeoffs. Compare it to Java that forces you to do no more than one public class per file. Just a very different design philosophy.
  Quote from: tggzzz on June 21, 2016, 02:13:32 pmThere's no equivalent of the C++ FQA because there's no need for there to be.There is plenty that frustrates me about C++ but the FQA is mostly nonsense. For an example "I don't like C++ classes.". Ok, yeah whatever.
  There is a very uncomfortable number of truths in that fqa.
  Quote from: tggzzz on June 21, 2016, 08:08:06 pmThere is a very uncomfortable number of truths in that fqa.Nobody cares because it is just an informative as saying 'you shouldn't use a hammer because you can hit your fingers'.
  Still there is no need to bring up the disadvantages of the old tool when discussing the new tool.
  The C/C++ provides very little compile-time type checking and almost no run-time checking whatsoever.
  The C/C++ provides very little compile-time type checking
  Quote from: tggzzz on June 21, 2016, 08:08:06 pmThere is a very uncomfortable number of truths in that fqa.No one should ever be uncomfortable when something they use gets criticized. I love picking out flaws in things I use and love myself.Clearly C++ isn't for you. That's ok. I have used quite a number of different programming languages with different success. Good thing is there are plenty of alternatives.
  Quite similarly, Ada isn't for me. I have done plenty of work in pascal to know that I don't enjoy languages like that. After trying haskell, I cannot help but yawn when I see something that verbose. But I respect the static type checking and trying to have things in place to verify that the application is correct. More power to people who do like it. It is always cool to see something get re-purposed.
  Pascal was never intended to be used as a programming language for large production software projects so no wonder it sucks (understatement) for that purpose.
   executables.
  It says in the GNAT FAQ ( ) that the free version of the compiler/etc can ONLY be used to develop free Open Source software (compiler, runtime, and libraries all full GPL, not LGPL or anything.) That seems ... less than attractive.
  (note that their "pro" version has a modified license...)
  Lets get back to Ada: it would be nice to get some pointers towards some introductions into the Ada language.
  The absence of LGPL libraries has made me lose interest completely. I think my time will be better spend on embedded Lua.