Ada would never have been cool.

Ironically I remember one of the complaints was it took a long time for the compilers to stabilize. They were such complex beasts with a small userbase so you had smallish companies trying to develop a tremendously complex compiler for a small crowd of government contractors, a perfect recipe for expensive software.

I think maybe they were just a little ahead of their time on getting a good open source compiler. The Rust project shows that it is possible now, but back in the 80s and 90s with only the very early forms of the Internet I don't think the world was ready.

> They could also have funded developing a free, open source toolchain.

If the actual purpose of the Ada mandate was cartel-making for companies selling Ada products, that would have been counter-productive to their goals.

Not that compiler vendors making money is a bad thing, compiler development needs to be funded somehow. Funding for language development is also a topic. There was a presentation by the maker of Elm about how programming language development is funded [0].

[0]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XZ3w_jec1v8

GNAT exists because DoD funded a free, open source toolchain.

Not to mention embedded software is often half the pay of a startup and defense software often isn't work from home. Forget asking what languages they can hire for. They are relying on the work being interesting to compensate for dramatically less pay and substantially less pleasant working conditions. Factor in some portion of the workforce has ethical concerns working in the sector and you can see they will get three sorts of employees. Those who couldn't get a job elsewhere, those who want something cool on their resume, and those who love the domain. And they will lose the middle category right around the time they become productive members of the team because it was always just a stepping stone.

Yes but like a certification, that clearance is yours, not the companies. You take it with you. It lasts a good while. There are plenty of government companies that would love you if you had one. Northrop, Lockheed, Boeing, etc.

And yet my experience looking at the deluge of clearance-required dev jobs from defense startups in the past couple of years is that there is absolutely no premium at all for clearance-required positions.

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

Ariane 5 is a nice anti-ada catchphrase, but ada is probably the most used language for war machines in the United States.

now the argument can be whether or not the US military is superior to X; but the fact that the largest military in the world is filled to the brim with warmachines running ada code is testament itself to the effectiveness of the language/dod/grant structure around the language.

would it be better off in c++? I don't know about that one way or the other , but it's silly pretend ada isn't successful.

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

That's a weak argument to say that Ada could not lead to a better place in term of software. It's like saying that it's not safer to cross at a crosswalk because you know someone who died while crossing on one.

(But I guess that's fair for you to say that, as the argument should probably be made by the people that say that Ada would be better, and because they made a claim without evidences, you can counterclaim without any evidence :-) )

There are no programming language that can prevent a software for working correctly outside of the domain for which the software is written, which was the case for Ariane 501. Any language that would have been used to write the same software for Ariane 4 may have led to the same exact error. Ariane 501 failure is a system engineering problem here, not a software problem (even if in the end, the almost last piece in the chain of event is a software problem)

Well, readability, better typesafety, less undefined behaviour. In and out parameters, named parameters. Built in concurrency.

With C++ it's just too easy to make mistakes.

> Relative to what?

Relative to C++.

> There are formal verification tools for other languages.

None that are actually used.

I have no horse in this race and I have never actually written any Ada, but it seems pretty clear to me that it would produce more correct code on average.

Looking at the Ariane 5 error it looks like the specifically disabled the compile-time error: https://www.sarahandrobin.com/ingo/swr/ariane5.html

That's nothing to do with Ada.

Also asking for evidence is a red herring. Where's the evidence that Rust code is more likely to be correct than Perl? There isn't any. It's too difficult to collect that evidence. Yet it's obviously true.

Plenty of things are pretty obviously true but collecting scientific evidence of them is completely infeasible. Are code comments helpful at all? No evidence. Are regexes error-prone and hard to read? No evidence. Are autoformatters helpful? No evidence.

I poorly worded it. Rafales allegedly shot down. After that happened, perhaps the pilots wanting them over F35s might have a different opinion. F35s might be harder to get a lock on at that distance and might have better situational awareness capabilities.

They were talking about the Rafales. But I think the comment is irrelevant anyway as the scandal happened before that iirc.

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.

[dead]