skepti2

But Ada had for a number of years a mandate to require its usage [0]. That should have been an extreme competitive advantage. And even then, C++ is still used these days for some US military projects, like F-35. Though I don't know whether the F-35 is successful or not, if it is not, that could be an argument against C++.

Ada is almost non-existent outside its niche.

The main companies arguing for Ada appear to be the ones selling Ada services, meaning they have a horse in the race.

I barely have any experience at all with Ada. My main impression is that it, like C++, is very old.

[0]: https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/167...

> The Defense Department`s chief of computers, Emmett Paige Jr., is recommending a rescission of the DOD`s mandate to use the Ada programming language for real-time, mission-critical weapons and information systems.

How do you define a better programming language, how do you judge whether one programming language is better than another, and how do you prevent corruption and cartels from taking over?

If Ada was "better" than C++, why did Ada not perform much better than C++, both in regards to safety and correctness (Ariane 5), and commercially regarding its niche and also generally? Lots of companies out there could have gotten a great competitive edge with a "better" programming language. Why did the free market not pick Ada?

You could then argue that C++ had free compilers, but that should have been counter-weighed somewhat by the Ada mandate. Why did businesses not pick up Ada?

Rust is much more popular than Ada, at least outside Ada's niche. Some of that is organic, for instance arguably due to Rust's nice pattern matching and modules and crates. And some of that is inorganic, like how Rust evangelists through force, threats[0], harassment[1] and organized and paid media spam force Rust.

I also tried Ada some time ago, trying to write a tiny example, and it seemed worse than C++ in some regards. Though I only spent a few hours or so on it.

[0]: https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/discussions/411#d...

[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2025/2/6/1292

> Technical patches and discussions matter. Social media brigading - no than\k you.

> Linus

https://archive.md/uLiWX

https://archive.md/rESxe

Yet that was not any of my arguments. It, ironically, applies more to the argument you made in your previous post.

A better argument would have been based on statistics. But that might both be difficult to do, and statistics can also be very easy to manipulate and difficult to handle correctly.

I think companies should be free to choose any viable option, and then have requirements that the process and end product is good. Mandating Ada or other programming languages, doesn't seem like it would have prevented Ariane 5, and probably wouldn't improve safety, security or correctness, instead just open the door for limiting competition and cartels and false sense of security. I believe that one should never delegate responsibility to the programming language, more that programmers, organizations and companies are responsible for which languages they choose and how they use them (for instance using a formally verified subset). On the other hand, having standards and qualifications like ISO 26262 and ASIL-D, like what Ferrocene is trying to do with their products for Rust, is fine, I believe. Even though, specifically, some things about the Ferrocene-derived specification seem very off.

> Ada and especially Spark makes it a whole lot easier to produce correct software.

Relative to what? There are formal verification tools for other languages. I have heard Ada/SPARK is good, but I do not know the veracity of that. And Ada companies promoting Ada have horses in the race.

And Ada didn't prevent the Ada code in Ariane 5 from being a disaster.

> The programming language is just a small piece of the puzzle. But an important one.

100% true, but the parent of the original post that he agreed with said:

> And the F35 and America's combat readiness would be in a better place today with Ada instead of C++.

What is the proof for that, especially considering events like Ariane 5?

And Ada arguably has technical and non-technical drawbacks relative to many other languages.

When I tried Ada some weeks ago for a tiny example, I found it cumbersome in some ways. Is the syntax worse and more verbose than even C++? Maybe that is just a learning thing, though. Even with a mandate, Ada did not catch on.

> It seems to me that the software field overall has become more open to a wider variety of languages and concepts, and knowing Ada wouldn't be perceived as widely as career pidgeonholing today.

Are you sure? I cannot even find Ada in [0].

I tried modifying some Hello World example in Ada some weeks ago, and I cannot say that I liked the syntax. Some features were neat. I had some trouble with figuring out building and organizing files. Like C++, and unlike Rust I think, there are multiple source file types, like how C++ has header files. I also had trouble with some flags, but I was trying to use some experimental features, so I think that part was on me.

[0]: https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2025/06/18/language-rankings-1-2...