| ▲ | fauigerzigerk 2 days ago | |||||||
> Why require that companies use a specific programming language instead of requiring that the end product is good? I can think of two reasons. First, achieving the same level of correctness could be cheaper using a better language. And second, you have to assume that your testing is not 100% correct and complete either. I think starting from a better baseline can only be helpful. That said, I have never used formal verification tools for C or C++. Maybe they make up for the deficiencies of the language. | ||||||||
| ▲ | skepti2 2 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
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 | ||||||||
| ||||||||