Talk:Ada (programming language)

Ada Home

• Ada Home - Old Web Site for Ada (not maintained)

I agree it is not maintained, but it is still used by Ada practitioners for reference. It is still recently referenced from the comp.lang.ada group. So I have restored the extlink. -Wikibob | Talk 11:24, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

Moved comments

Moved comments here from main text. Reorganized into threads.--buzco

Ariane 5

The descrition of the Ariane 5 Failure should not be on a side describing a programming language a link to a different side should be enough. Ariane 5 Failure

Hermann Wacker

I agree with that. it seems to me that this topic has nothing to do in an article describing a programming language all the more since it is rather a human error than a weakness of the language.

--Tarroux 07:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant because Ada advocates claim that Ada doesn't allow these types of mistakes. That is, until someone brings up this incident or something like it, then Ada advocates say something else. Val42 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

US Department of Defense

Really only used anymore in US Department of Defense stuff. Oh yeah, and Ada95, the most popular Ada compiler actually translates your code to C, then compiles the C. I love that.

---

Ada95 is not a compiler, it is a version of Ada, the most recent version, I believe. I am also skeptical of the idea that Ada is "really only used anymore" in the US DOD.

---

Do you mean GNAT (GNU Ada Translater) when writing "Ada95"? This is no translater to C any longer but a frontend to the GNU Compiler Collection, as the C or the Java frontends are. By the way, it is _not_ used only by DOD staff and it is a highly capable language. In contrast to the popular misbelief it produces rather fast code (comparable to C).

---

Make that C, C++, Forth, FORTRAN, Java, Objective C and Pascal front ends! May be others! --buzco

---

The team behind Gnat used in the beginning a proprietary Ada compiler and used that to build an compiler which implemented a subset of Ada big enough to support building itself. Now the team left that proprietary compiler in the dust. After that it was a simple matter of extending that they already have while using the base to build the next more evolved version.

Gnat until 3.11 or so (ca 1999) needed to generate a C stub for the sake of elaboration but that liability is no more !!

GNAT never was a Ada-to-C translator !

cfront was a c++-to-c translator !

---

SofCheck licenses its "AdaMagic" front end to a number of Ada vendors. There is one version of this front end that generates optimized ISO/ANSI C (though it is not widely used at this point). There is another version that generates Java byte codes ("AppletMagic"(tm)). The most widely used version generates a conventional compiler intermediate representation, and has well over 50,000 users. The version that generates optimized C is useful because it allows the use of Ada on platforms that might not justify the expense of building a fully integrated Ada compiler. The C-generating front end has enabled the use of Ada 95 on Crays, old Vax/VMS machines, old versions of the AIX operating system, 16-bit microcontrollers, etc. We love that. ;-)

And actually, the USDoD has no particular connection to Ada anymore. The most loyal users of Ada are companies that like the low error rates that typically accompany developing in Ada, as well as those that are obligated to certify the safety of the software (commercial aviation, passenger rail, etc.). 209.6.248.170 14:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

theory books

Ada is used in a few compiler theory books because of its comprehensiveness and elegance.

primary users

Should there be a section on primary users of a language like ada and how their requirements affected the language?

Pascal

Ada has some tastes of Pascal still but not one of the bad ones. --Janet Davis

list of possible topics

(list of possible topics moved from main page) What about

• how Ada tied into formal specification languages?
• how Ada is very stongly typed
• packages in Ada
• concurrency support
• real time/embedded system support ???
• how Ada suffered from design by DOC committee/specifications and required super-fast hardware for compilation/debugging.
• ?? others

list of possible topics

I think the Steelman language requirements page would be better as part of this entry, or maybe a subpage, as it isn't really of interest except in the context of Ada. Anyone agree/disagree? --Matthew Woodcraft

More Ariane 5

I don't think the note re the Ariane 5 disaster is quite correct. As I understand it, the fault was the re-use of a part and its software, which had worked properly on the Ariane 4. However, the more powerful engines on the Ariane 5 gave a thrust/velocity/displacement that was out of the part's design range, and the part detected that fact -- correctly, according to its original design. But since it thought it had a number that failed the sanity check it went into debug mode -- again according to design -- and started dumping debug data onto the rocket's control bus. So unless my understanding of the problem is wrong, the problem was a simple failure to review a part's specifications, and nothing at all to do with the programming language or compilation switches. -- B.Bryant

That's basically my understanding of the situation, except that 'detected that fact' is a bit strong -- it seems that the error was a CPU-level floating point trap, with no high-level-language handler. The Ada task in question didn't actually do anything useful after takeoff, so if the exception hadn't been explicitly suppressed the rocket would have been safe.

Certainly that bit of the article could do with improvement, but some mention is probably appropriate in this article (if it were taken out someone would just add it in again). -- Matthew Woodcraft

The Ariane failure occurred in a piece of the code that has no function in flight (only useful on ground). It was a simple run-time overflow of an float to integer conversion. Since the exception trapping and handling in Ada is somewhat heavy and it was thought that this overflow could not occur, no exception handling was present in this part of the code. In Ada, unhandled exceptions generated propagation to calling levels, this overflow condition propagated all the way up to the main line. Exceptions at the top level main line are handled with a CPU halt, with the assumption that a major hardware failure has occurred and a switchover to backup is needed.

The reason that Ada by some is claimed as a contributing factor for the accident is that such a failure occuring in low level was not contained there, but propagated all the way to the top level code causing a halt. Common system design practise in space systems required that malfunctions in subelements are not propagated to other parts of the system.

The article was misleading on this, I tried to make it more factual. Uffe 05:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. The reference used is very bad third level hear-say analysis by a group trying to promote some software called 'Eiffel' and has no bearing on subject.

---

Re: "design by DOC committee

Ada was not "designed by committee", each version (Ada and Ada-95) had ONE designer that had final say on any feature or change to the language. Its design is far cleaner and more organized than many other languages. -- RTC 01:38 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

True. The DOD's choice of Ada was the result of a competitive tendering process in which Ada beat the other contenders. The only role of a committee was to decide that it was better than the other proposed languages. -- Derek Ross

---

Re: "required super-fast hardware for compilation/debugging"

I added a section on the problems that the early compilers had and why. -- RTC 02:16 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, I never heard about Ada 80 and I discussed with lots of people involved in early Ada including Jean Ichbiah and people from the Ada/Ed project (first validated Ada compiler). Would you mind naming exactly the documents and compilers? Also point to document about elaboration issues? Thanks. Guerby 21:20 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing that entire section, not only because of Guerby's concerns, but because a quick search of the Web shows that the Ada Mandate was not signed into law until 1990, so it cannot be blamed for the quality of 1980-era compilers.

FWIW I have also heard mention that when Ada first came out it demanded things beyond then-current compiler technology, so maybe there is still a need for a section like the one I removed. However, if anyone decides to put such a section back in, please check and document any claims of fact included in the section. - B.Bryant 23:40 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Silly criticisms

Ada was widely called by many the "language of the future", but has never been used that much outside of the government. This title is often laughed at by programmers now. A major impediment to Ada's widespread adoption may have been that it is extremely verbose and the variable name conventions (requiring CamelCase and underscores to be used in the same variable name, such as This_Variable) are difficult to type, look ugly, and don't provide any information, unlike variable name conventions for just about every other language do.

I'm excising this whole paragraph. I've never heard it called the "language of the future", after reading a lot about Ada. For every language, you can find someone hyping it that looks silly in retrospect. Usage may be important, but it needs a lot more than just "never been used that much". "The variable name conventions ... are difficult to type, look ugly, and don't provide any information, unlike variable name conventions for just about every other language do" is a bit absurd; Ada has the same freeform variable names that most modern languages do, and the names I've seen in C code look much like the ones in Ada. To say that other language name conventions aren't difficult to type and don't look ugly is a very arguable case to make; BASIC and FORTRAN's short variable names, FORTRAN's type-name relations and Perl's type-name relations can be considered ugly and difficult.

I'd like to see some valid criticisms on Ada, but these are just silly. --Prosfilaes 02:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

date discrepancy?

In May of 1979, the Green proposal, designed by Jean Ichbiah at Cii Honeywell Bull, was chosen and given the name Ada

the above is chronologically the first mention of the name 'Ada' being associated with the Ada programming language. I'm quite certain that when I worked for the US Navy, and at sometime definitely prior to 1976 June 13, that I heard mention of 'the Ada Project' more than once. Do we have any info available from nonclassified source about this beingcalled the Ada Project, prior to 1979?

Reversion of Sep. 14th changes

There was nothing awful, but nothing great. Ada83 is one version of Ada, not another name for; "statically typed" is more unambigious than "strongly typed"; it was created to stop the proliferation of languages in the DoD, and improving on other languages (and not just C and C++) was a side-goal; what it was designed to do is important; and tasking is just one feature out of many.

---

I replaced "Ada was named after Ada, Lady Lovelace, the first computer programmer" with "Ada was named after Ada, Lady Lovelace", because the statement that she was a computer programmer directly contradicts the linked Wikipedia article (as well as other sources). My edit was reverted by UtherSRG with no explanation. I'm not trying to denigrate Ada Lovelace or the Ada language; I'm just trying to correct a factual error in a Wikipedia article. There is no historical evidence to support the common belief that she wrote programs for the Analytical Engine. -- BenRG 00:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Ben. I get a bit overzealous guarding some articles from anonymous editors. You are right, the article on Ada Lovelace indeed points out that she probably didn't do any programming. Take a look again at the sentence in quesiton. - UtherSRG 14:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy with that. -- BenRG 21:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ada Capitalization

I propose to change the capitalization of the identifier 'Text_Io' in the Hello World! example. In my opinion the correct letter case is 'Text_IO' and not 'Text_Io', as it's found in the Ada Reference Manual and also in the GNAT source code. Although Ada is not case sensitive this doesn't mean that capitalization isn't important. The Ada 95 Quality and Style Guide recommends to 'Use uppercase for abbreviations and acronyms', e.g. Text_IO (for Input/Output). Moreover, GNAT has an option to check attribute casing and reject any identifier that doesn't mach with its definition casing. Both forms are syntactically correct, but Text_IO is more correct and follows the language's guidelines of quality and style. Thanks -- suruena 14:13, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Right!

--Krischik 14:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

JGNAT, MGNAT and A#

I've moved JGNAT back to the compilers subsection and added MGNAT (Ada .NET compiler). I've also removind the reference to A# to the related programming languages subsection (that was put there by myself). I'm not sure whether A# is only the name of the project, or there are any extension to the Ada language (other than 'limited with', a feature that will be part of Ada 2005). Are the languages accepted by JGNAT and MGNAT a subset of Ada? (Can someone confirm this?) In that case, maybe it would be necesary to add a section called Ada dialects.

NOTE: I do not consider SPARK as an Ada dialect because it greatly changes the language with data & information flow analysis (adding formal annotations), therefore becoming another language. But if A# makes any chages (I suppose those are minor changes), I will consider it a dialect.

-- suruena 23:38, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

More a superset

I would consider JGNAT and MGNAT more a superset. In order to support the virtual mashines additional featuers are added: Garbage Collector - a must, interface inheritance, limited with, Object.Operation.

Yes, some of which will be part of Ada 2005 - but not all with the same syntax. And on top ObjectAda did the Java extension differently. The hope is that with Ada 2005 all both will fall in line again.

As for A# - Tricky to say since MGNAT is the only A# implementation - so mayby there are just two words for the same thing.

SPARC and "Dialect" - I see the word itself broader then you - The are german dialects which I can't understand - but I can understand SPARC programms.

But if you are a native english speaker you may find a more appropiate word.

Anyway, I think the current wording is OK for far and I would leave it as it is.

--Krischik 08:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Embedded systems

I removed the Embedded systems cat (a language alone isn't a system) and got a note regarding Ada's intended use within that context. While I wouldn't suggest re-adding the category, I would suggest that someone incorporate that fact in the article itself to better clarify that fact.--Hooperbloob 06:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As a software engineer involved in the development of Ada, I would like to see included in here a comparison with C and C++. Ada is one of the few programming languages certified by the DoD because we produce much more reliable programs, more resistant to hacking than other high order languages, e.g., C++. However, where speed is concerned, you really want to use either Assembly Language or C, an intermediate language. Ada still requires a lot of memory and has a high overhead. There are some compilers that allow an optimized, bare-bones Ada but they need to be carefully checked. I suggest having two compilers and compiling the source code on both. You'll find different bugs each way.

I just wanted to start writing such a chapter but the first sentence in chapter "Features" allready reads: "Ada was originally targeted at embedded and real-time systems, and is still commonly used for those purposes.". --Krischik 18:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article improvements

"It addresses many of the same tasks as C or C++, but with one of the best type-safety systems available in a statically typed programming language."

This sounds rather dubious to me. No cites, no specifics, simply an assertion. What sort of a type system? Strong, weak, optional type declarations or mandatory, duck-typing; any sort of type inference? For that matter, are there higher-order functions or any functional characteristics at all?

The type discipline is described inside the info box (Typing discipline: static, strong, safe, nominative). As for the describing the type system - we should probable say more. Over at wikibooks we have two rather large articles on Ada's type system. --Krischik ^T 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Ariane 5 section a top level section? That should really be a subheader of a (currently non-existent) Criticism section (I think a criticism section is definitely missing- the first time I ever heard of Ada was when some folks were criticising it). It's also kinda weasel-wordy.

Read again: We are defeding Ada as the Ariane 5 failure was a rooted in mis-management. Neither the programmers nor the programming language are to blame. No criticism on Ada at all is deserved here. It is also one of the most changes sections as feelings run high here. --Krischik ^T 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

While we are talking about the headers, why the deuce is there an "Ada Wikis" section? That should be a subheader of External links, as none of them are notable enough to have their own article- and that's just in addition to the peculiarity of linking to Wiktionary definitions at all, much less in an "Ada Wikis" top level header. The See also section needs cleanup as well: they are not supposed to be red links. Move'em over into Ext. links as well.

Yes - quite a few links here. Cleaning up is indeed needed. I also noted external links in "see also". --Krischik ^T 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

--maru (talk) contribs 23:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this entire thing looks like it was written by an unabashed Ada promoter. If it was about a product, I'd think somebody quite simply cut n' pasted promotional material from the company's website. There's also several spots in the entry that all but say that it's 'impossible' to write bad code in the language. I really wish Ada's fans would get it through their heads what they didn't back in the late 80's when you'd find one in damn near any programming shop (at least before C++ took off and Ada experienced a dramatic decline in mind share), which is it's possible to write bad code in ANY language, even stuff that's incredibly contract based like Eiffel. ALL programming languages represent trade-offs and compromises, and that includes Ada. This entry makes it sound like it's a bulletproof language that's will catch almost any error a coder might make ahead of time, which simply isn't true. It's not 1988 anymore, Ada fans, and some concessions to reality and the decline of the use of the language in the real world won't kill you. --Dh100 20:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

True, you can not catch all errors in existence - but you can catch more then the competition - and it is only fair to mention that. I will reverse your argument: When will it be understood to the general programming community that it is possible for a compiler to flag Date.Day := 33 as an error. --Krischik ^T 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ada Mandate

Why has the cancellation of the Ada Mandate been deleted from the article page? Val42 04:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect strongly it's because the Ada fans who wrote and watch over this page didn't care for it. --Dh100 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Ada programming language → Ada (programming language) – Conformance with WP naming conventions atanamir Moved. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages/Renaming poll

Influences

Extract from: http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/history/holwg-93/2.htm (source: portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1057816&type=pdf)

1. Without exception, the following languages were found by the evaluators to be inappropriate to serve as base languages for a development of the common language: FORTRAN, COBOL, TACPOL, CMS-2, JOVIAL J-73, JOVIAL J-3B, SIMULA 67, ALGOL 60, and CORAL 66.
2. Proposals should be solicited from appropriate language designers for modification efforts using any of the languages, Pascal, PL/I, or ALGOL 68 as a base language from which to start. These efforts should be directed toward the production of a language that satisfied the DoD set of language requirements for embedded computer applications.

Ada - DoD HOLWG, Col Wm Whitaker, 1993

I don't know what the complete list of functionality originally from ALGOL 68 is. Maybe concurrency, operators, overloading & strong typing. These were mostly missing from ALGOL 60. So I changed the "Influenced by:" to refer to ALGOL 68 directly.

NevilleDNZ 18:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the language here. The notion was to start with a "base language" and modify it to meet additional requirements (Steelman). All four finalists chose to start with Pascal, which was widely perceived as a simple, clean language. Of course, Pascal is also a very incomplete language, as it was intended for student programming (compare Wirth's Pascal with ISO Pascal), so a lot had to be changed/added. There was strong lobbying from the British MoD to work with Algol 68, but in the US it had a bad reputation (mostly undeserved, but that's another story). Beyond the base language, ideas were taken from all sorts of places, including Algol 68, CSP, etc. --Macrakis 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reality

Ada sucks. Ada is dead. Why do people still use it? Especially some Dod companies? You can do EVERYTHING in C++. Any Ada programmer who claims you can't doesn't know ish about C++. Even call by naming can be done in C++. Explicit type safety can be done. The best is when someone says that they like Ada over C++. They should really just quit and program Ada at home, then. Anyone who thinks such just shouldn't have a job. I hate Ada. C++ Template 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)