Talk:Ada (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:03, 13 June 2012

Latest revision as of 06:16, 29 December 2024

(70 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{merged-from|Steelman language requirements|24 December 2024}}

{{talkheader}}

{{WikiProject Computingbanner shell|class=C|importancevital=yes|1=High}}

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Computer science|importance=High}}

}}

{{archives}}

== ArticleExternal improvementslinks modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

:''"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."''

I have just modified 5 external links on [[Ada (programming language)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=787594532 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

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?

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304073005/http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/policy/mandate.txt to http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/policy/mandate.txt

*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1040000/1035608/p28-wolfe.pdf

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706133825/http://www.digilife.be/quickreferences/QRC/Ada%20Syntax%20Card.pdf to http://www.digilife.be/quickreferences/QRC/Ada%20Syntax%20Card.pdf

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206005541/http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83lrm/html/lrm-B.html to http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83lrm/html/lrm-B.html

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040625113309/http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83lrm/html/Welcome.html to http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83lrm/html/Welcome.html

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/ada_language_mapping.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

: 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 <ref>[[wikibooks:Ada_Programming/Subtypes]]</ref> <ref>[[Wikibooks:Ada_Programming/Types]]</ref> rather large articles on Ada's type system. --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

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.

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 09:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

: 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. --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

: Yes - quite a few links here. Cleaning up is indeed needed. I also noted external links in "see also". --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just modified one external link on [[Ada (programming language)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=792381656 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

--[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 23:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202205233/http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83rat/html/Welcome.html to http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83rat/html/Welcome.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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. --[[User:Dh100|Dh100]] 20:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

: 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 <code>Date.Day := 33</code> as an error. --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dh100 - this is a puff piece. I didn't read every word but I did not see any mention of why ADA was abandoned, other than mention that compilers were slow and vendors slow in supplying them. ADA wasn't object-oriented, and when OOP took off, ADA got left behind. Now it's just creaky and outdated. ADA still lives on as PL/SQL and in that form is cursed roundly and daily. Wordy plus hard-to-read is just the beginning. --[[User:LeoHeska|LeoHeska]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 16:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Comments and end of line ==

: As someone programming regularly in Ada, I would not say that it was "abandoned" or "left behind" - there are enough examples in this article where it is used. It has its place. For concurrent systems it is still far more advanced than C++ (no built-in support), Java (really crude support), python (let's just say "global interpreter lock") and most other "modern" languages. For real-time systems and safety-critical systems it is still widely and successfully used. OOP has distinct disadvantages in those contexts (hard to fullfill realtime guarantees or avoid memory fragmentation with garbage-collected systems, combining synchronization with OOP causes its own set of problems, etc.). I also never understood why e.g. Java (or any other language after Ada) didn't use the Ada-style protected object instead of the "synchronized" concept (or other outdated monitor and signaling concepts), which still uses conditional variables instead of entry guards. About "wordy and hard to read" I would rather say Ada is "wordy and easy to read", which is clearly a plus considering that most development time is spent reading, debugging and maintaining code.

:I think a wikipedia article should inform the reader about this language, the main features, and maybe also some lacking features, to get a good picture. How widely used it is can be informational if statistics can be found, but the reasons why some people use it or not, like it, curse it, etc. is anecdotal and just pure speculation. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sfx42|Sfx42]] ([[User talk:Sfx42|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sfx42|contribs]]) 23:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

"''Comments stop at end of line, so there is no danger of unclosed comments accidentally voiding whole sections of source code.''"

The History and the Standardization sections have no mention of Ada 2005.--[[Special:Contributions/76.83.24.57|76.83.24.57]] ([[User talk:76.83.24.57|talk]]) 06:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is actually more dangerous than explicit closing when you use UTF-8 encoding. For example, if the last character on the comment line is a 'é' (e with acute accent), and if the source parser is miss-configured and thinks the encoding is a one-byte encoding (e.g. ISO-8859-1) rather than UTF-8, then the compiler won't see the end of line and treat the next line of code following the comment as a continuation of the comment. So one line of code won't be executed!

==Ada Mandate==

[[User:Bohan|Bohan]] ([[User talk:Bohan|talk]]) 15:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

: Most of the section concerning comments is poorly worded, IMO. Parts of it are obviously incorrect. For example, how can one line comments be nested??? [[Special:Contributions/207.225.245.125|207.225.245.125]] ([[User talk:207.225.245.125|talk]]) 05:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

: You can nest single-line comments by adding a comment marker to the start of the line, so you can comment out lines without worrying about existing comments.

==Requested move==

: If you're feeding the wrong encoding into your compiler, there's your bug. I don't know how a trailing é (in UTF-8 16#c3# 16#a9#, or misinterpreted as Latin-1, "é") could cause the compiler to not see the end of line, though.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 06:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

[[Ada programming language]] → [[Ada (programming language)]]

– Conformance with WP naming conventions [[User:Atanamir|atanamir]]

Moved. See: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages/Renaming poll]]

:: I guess it depends on how "nesting" is defined. I believe it is defined as a block comment within a block comment. While I see your point that an end-of-line comment can be within an end-of-line comment, I have never seen (except in this article) that called "nesting". IMO, the article should just say "Ada has end-of-line comments, started with --, and was intentionally designed not to use block comments", or equivalent wording, and give an example of an Ada comment. All the other text concerning Ada comments (eg, "designed to resemble the English language") is verbiage, IMO. [[Special:Contributions/207.225.245.125|207.225.245.125]] ([[User talk:207.225.245.125|talk]]) 17:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

== Influences ==

:"While clearly denoting disabled code with a column of repeated "--" down the page, this renders the experimental dis/re-enablement of large blocks a more drawn out process."

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

:Disabling large segments of code is trivial

:# 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]].

:== declare a boolean in the relevant unit

:# Proposals should be solicited from appropriate language designers for modification efforts using any of the languages, [[Pascal (programming language)|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.

:Disabled : Boolean;

:Ada - DoD HOLWG, [[William A. Whitaker|Col Wm Whitaker]], 1993

:== Set that boolean to true or false as required

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.

:Disabled := true;

:== wrap your block of code to be selectively disabled in an if statement.

:if not Disabled then

:end if;

:[[Special:Contributions/86.14.138.8|86.14.138.8]] ([[User talk:86.14.138.8|talk]]) 19:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

== Double-dash? or double-hypen? ==

[[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 18:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The article reads:

: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, [[Communicating sequential processes|CSP]], etc. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

<blockquote>

== Moved from article ==

A double-dash ("--"), resembling an em dash, denotes comment text. </blockquote>

I suspect that "double-[[dash]]" is incorrect, with the correct statement being "double-[[hyphen]]".

:== Criticism ==

But I'm not sure, so I will leave this for someone else.

:=== The Ariane 5 failure ===

:{{Main|Ariane 5 Flight 501}}

:The maiden flight loss of [[Ariane 5 Flight 501]], a [[European Space Agency]] [[Ariane 5]] launcher, was due to an :error in a program written in Ada for checks of the launcher while on the ground. During the beginning of the flight a :run-time error occurred that was not covered by an exception handler and therefore propagated to the main guidance :program leading to main processor shut down and loss of guidance. Management of the [[Ariane 5]] project had decided :that since the same program worked well for all the flights of the [[Ariane 4]] it would be reused directly, without :being adapted, for the [[Ariane 5]]. For the [[Ariane 4]] program, efficiency considerations had led to the disabling :of the software handler (in Ada code) for one error trap (a data conversion from a 64-bit floating point to 16-bit :signed integer value). However, the flight parameters of [[Ariane 5]] were different and when one value failed a range :check that was impossible to fail on an [[Ariane 4]] there was no code in place to handle the resulting exception. The :incident led to discussions on the use of Ada as a possible contributing factor, in particular concerning the design of :Ada's run-time error handling.

[[User:Karl gregory jones|Karl gregory jones]] ([[User talk:Karl gregory jones|talk]]) 17:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not a criticism. It is just an anecdote that does not explain anything related to Ada as a language. If someone can re-write the section so that it represents a critical view of Ada, then the section should be re-instated.

: It's a [[hyphen-minus]], to give it its Unicode name. It is the one and only ASCII character to be a horizontal line at x-height in the character cell. It is the dash in ASCII, among its multitude of duties.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 04:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for folks with an axe to grind. Rather than complain about how "they" say "this" about Ada and then "something happens", provide a valid explanation of what the language spec provides and how it fails to meet the objectives. A legitimate explanation of the features and deficiencies will provide value to the article. However, the above section that I removed just downgrades the quality of the article without making any sense to an uninformed reader.[[User:Michael Daly|Michael Daly]] 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

== "Safe modular programming" ==

: Of course you are right. You see for us Ada advocates it is a very touchy part. Ada haters blame Ada for the failure - and they do so loudly. There argument is that Ada did not meet it's objective. Even you ask ''"how it fails to meet the objectives"'' - but that is the point: Ada never failed it's objective. The Ariane 5 management failed its objective and where probably looking for a [[Scapegoat]]. If runtime checks are explicitly switched off as part of a design decision then it's not the fault of the language. Actually the chapter should have been == Unfair Criticism == - but wikipedia does not normally carry such chapters. I sitting here and I am don't know what to do. Leave it deleted, was not a very good chapter really. Or is the [[Fear, uncertainty and doubt|FUD]] so widespread that it is of encyclopaedic value after all? Honestly I am torn here. --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the "History" section ends with a rather vague (IMO) reference to "safe modular programming". This phrase doubtless means something definite to someone somewhere, but I find it unclear—and I have a degree in computer science, so I imagine the two adjectives in front of "programming" convey virtually no useful information to a casual reader.

== Pronunciation of Ada ==

A [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22safe+modular+programming%22 Google search] for the three-word phrase in question, in quotes, turns up 1,660 results, and it seems like they're mostly direct quotes of this article, which strikes me as problematic. I can guess pretty well what "modular programming" means (I mean, there's [[Modular programming|an article]] about it, and of course I know what modularity is, so that's a reasonable term to use), but "safe" is a bit of a weasel word. Without a link to an article describing a specific kind of safety (like how "safe" links to the article on type safety in the infobox), it's hard to know which, or how many, of the meanings of the word are intended. Was the problem that some of the languages then in use supported modular programming, and some supported safe (whatever that means) programming, but none supported safe, modular programming? Or were all languages both unsafe and non-modular? Or something else entirely?

What is the dominant pronunciation of "Ada?" I don't know if it's supposed to be /'æˑdə/ ("add uh") or /'eɪˑdə/ ("aid uh"). If you know, please add the IPA pronunciation to the article. [[User:GoodSirJava|GoodSirJava]] 14:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

All of that to say: it would be great if someone who knows more about the history of programming languages than I could clarify what "safe" means in this context.

: /'edə/, according to "A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English". But I don't see that the article needs it; it's just the English name Ada.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably making too much of a fuss about a single word, but it strikes me as a deficiency in the article, so I think it should either be fixed somehow or someone should explain why it's not actually a problem.

== Further resources ==

See the [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Ada_Programming#Resources Ada wikibook]'s discussion page for a collection of possibly interesting references: <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.83.76.5|82.83.76.5]] ([[User talk:82.83.76.5|talk]]) 10:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

[[User:GreenWeasel11|GreenWeasel11]] ([[User talk:GreenWeasel11|talk]]) 08:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

== Wirth programming language ==

Ada is not a Wirth programming language. Wirth did not create it. Ada is not a Wirth-like language; languages are vastly dissimilar to people. Ada may be a Wirthian language, but there's no agreement on that[http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Typing]. I fail to see this as a useful or clear category, and would like to see a better name, a clear definition of what a Wirthian programming language is, and to start out with [[ALGOL W]], [[Pascal (programming language)|Pascal]], and other self-evidently Wirthian programming languages before adding Ada.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:I don't have sources, but I remember proponents of Ada stating it aimed to make programming more safe, meaning tending to produce fewer or less severe bugs, especially for large projects. Features supporting this focused on inter-module programming constructs, where other languages, like C, could be weak in detecting certain kinds of bugs. So, it's not really a "weasel" word, but I'd say it's subjective at best, and may only be theoretical. In my experience, although Ada did have features that purported to address some things around this, other contemporary languages and code-checking tools did as well or better with less awkwardness.

:* ''10-Nov-2008:'' I tend to agree with not labeling Ada as a "Wirth-like" language, and so I had put the wording "extended from Pascal and other languages" rather than "based on Pascal" (as in October). Ada is a comb-structured language (4 teeth: "Declare-Begin-Exception-End"), where the semicolon ends a statement, and that is radically different from Pascal separators, where semicolons before an "END" have killed Pascal compilations (zillions of them). Because Ada is so much larger, broader than Pascal, I don't think any ''Wirth-like'' connections are very helpful for software readers, but perhaps instead, emphasize some major ways how Ada is NOT like Pascal. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

:In summary, I'd say it's okay to keep ''if sourced''. Otherwise, it should go. --[[User:A D Monroe III|A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III]]^{([[User talk:A D Monroe III#top|talk]])} 02:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

::Good point. I tend to use terms to mean what I want them to mean rather than what they're commonly accepted to mean—so if "weasel word" connotes intent to mislead as Google's dictionary says, then I should have just said "ambiguous". But anyway, it just seems shady to make the sweeping statement that no language the DoD used supported this way of programming and then not indicate precisely what features they lacked that made them un"safe". Oh well. It's not terribly important anyway. I do find it disturbing that there are so many instances online of people parroting this phrase when each person who reads it probably has a slightly different idea of what it's supposed to mean. —[[User:GreenWeasel11|GreenWeasel11]] ([[User talk:GreenWeasel11|talk]]) 03:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

== Real World Projects in Ada ==

== Logo ==

Link to a page that shows real world projects that use Ada:

http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html

[[Special:Contributions/75.68.157.156|75.68.157.156]] ([[User talk:75.68.157.156|talk]]) 10:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit disturbing to add a logo to the page, that has no "official" status. It was a result of a contest on [http://www.gnoga.com/#mascot Gnoga], for business purposes: ''"As part of my work on the building the business side of Gnoga to advocate Ada to the applications market, I realized that there is not a single modern slick Ada mascot (that doesn't mean the mascot replaces Lady Ada!). So, as I always do, I put my time and money where my mouth is :)"''. I don't think Wikipedia shall endorse this, and I'll thus remove the image from this page. [[User:7zz|7zz]] ([[User talk:7zz|talk]]) 08:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

==Comments==

:Why do you care? I mean, Wikipedia's role is descriptive in nature, not prescriptive, right? —[[User:GreenWeasel11|GreenWeasel11]] ([[User talk:GreenWeasel11|talk]]) 20:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

::I don't think the logo has to be "official", but there does need to be evidence that it's widely used and accepted. It doesn't seem to be used on the web sites of the [https://www.adaic.org/ Ada Information Clearinghouse] or [https://www.adacore.com/ Adacore], a leading Ada vendor, or on the covers of books about Ada. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 20:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

:::That's what I was thinking; I looked around and didn't see it in many places, so I don't think there are grounds for reverting the edit, but I see nothing wrong in principle with using a symbol not officially approved by the language designers. —[[User:GreenWeasel11|GreenWeasel11]] ([[User talk:GreenWeasel11|talk]]) 21:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

::::Ok, that's debatable. But if, say, a commercial implementation has a well-known logo, I don't think it's ok to put this logo on the programming language page, that is not limited to this commercial implementation. It's similar here: apparently the goal is to promote Ada in a business context, and this is not endorsed by the wider Ada community. A kind of POV-pushing, maybe. But if we all agree, for various reasons, that the logo should not be here, that's fine. [[User:7zz|7zz]] ([[User talk:7zz|talk]]) 12:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

== Reference to SPARK? ==

The current text of the comments section is a bit strange. See commentary below:

:Ada was designed to use the English language standard for comments:

::What "English language standard for comments"? What does this refer to?

:the em-dash, as a double-dash ("--")

::Ada does not allow non-ASCII characters such as the [[em-dash]] (—) in programs; two hyphens in a row is the typewriter convention for writing dashes, that is all.

:to denote comment text.

::"--" does not 'denote' comment text, it ''begins'' it.

:Comments stop at end of line,

::This is all a very wordy way of saying that Ada has conventional line-end comments introduced by "--".

:so there is no danger of unclosed comments accidentally eating whole sections of source code.

::This is true of all line-end comments.

:Comments can be nested: prefixing each line (or column) with "--" will skip all that code, while being clearly denoted as a column of repeated "--" down the page.

::This is not the conventional sense of "nesting comments"; anyway, this convention words for any language using line-end comments.

:There is no limit to the nesting of comments, thereby allowing prior code, with commented-out sections, to be commented-out as even larger sections.

::This is a pretty vacuous statement, since it works with any line-end comments

:All characters are allowed in comments, such as for symbolic formulas (E[0]=m*c^2).

::Again, pretty vacuous.

:To the compiler, the double-dash is treated as end-of-line,

::No need to bring the compiler into the language definition.

:allowing continued parsing of the language as a [[context-free grammar]].

::Yet another completely vacuous statement.

Lots of verbiage, no more content than saying "Ada has conventional end-of-line comments introduced by '--'". --[[User:Macrakis|macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 03:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Should this article reference / discuss SPARK, which is derived from ada? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/139.63.195.185|139.63.195.185]] ([[User talk:139.63.195.185#top|talk]]) 07:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

* ''10-Nov-2008:'' I was attempting to add more detail for general readers, by adding phrases about the parallel to English--with the commentary notation. Also, the issues about unclosed-comments and nested-comments (comments within commented-out code) are major aspects of comment-syntax design. Noting the "parsing of the language as a [[context-free grammar]]" is a brief note emphasizing that the language design is very much concerned with the compiler. There are also several other aspects that I omitted for brevity; however, I think expanding (not reducing) the text would be a better avenue: adding a whole article section about Ada comment syntax and its impact, where readers would be expecting several sentences about the use of comments. I am thankful for the above analysis: without that suggestion to use fewer words, I might never have realized that many more words were needed. It can be so easy to view other people's concerns as "vacuous" when people forget about viewpoints of beginners or laymen. I have worked on clarifying many articles that people had labeled as "too technical" and needed more basic details for general readers. However, the best approach might be to write an intro article ("[[Introduction to Ada]]") as has been done with other detailed subjects. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider SPARK a Ada dialect, but a real complete programming language <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/139.63.195.185|139.63.195.185]] ([[User talk:139.63.195.185#top|talk]]) 07:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

* I agree with Macrakis, that this part is too verbose. What should clearly stay is: That the double dash parallels english/natural languages (it’s in the 83 rationale, Section 2.1: ''As an end of line remark, the comment should appear as an explanation of the preceding text -- hence the use of a double hyphen (doing duty for a dash) is natural and appropriate, as illustrated by this sentence.''), and that arbitrary characters are allowed inside comments (this is not invariably true in other languages and explicitly stated in the tinman requirements).

: But the benefits of line comments (no runaway comments, no problems with nesting, grep-friendly, easy to recognize) would IMHO better be elaborated ''in depth'' [[Comment_(computer_programming)|somewhere else]]. However, I ailed to find sources, except internet discussions, for the problems and merits of line and block comments, yet (WP:OR…)—any suggestions where too look for some? [[User:Rathgemz|Rathgemz]] ([[User talk:Rathgemz|talk]]) 22:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

== confusing textAccuracy ==

{{Blockquote|text=One notable free software tool that is used by many Ada programmers to aid them in writing Ada source code is the GNAT Programming Studio, part of the GNU Compiler Collection.}}

This article contains the following block of text, and I don't know precisely what it means. I suspect there is some missing punctuation. Anyone know what is trying to be said here?

This isn't accurate - GNAT Programming Studio, a development IDE/editor, is a open source project by AdaCore, released under GPLv3, but it is *not* part of the GNU Compiler Collection. GNAT, the Ada compiler, is part of the GNU Compiler Collection, however.

The semicolon (";") is a statement terminator, so Ada avoids the very common problem where ";END" kills a Pascal compilation because ";" is only a Pascal separator, never allowed either to terminate "END;" in Pascal.

== Ada and Agda ==

[[Special:Contributions/65.183.135.231|65.183.135.231]] ([[User talk:65.183.135.231|talk]]) 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(moved from [[User talk:Macrakis]])

This is purely anecdotal, but I added the hatnote distinguishing the Ada and Agda programming languages because I was talking about one with a friend and discovered he thought I was talking about the other. And he was a programmer! The languages themselves may be quite different, but their *names* are very similar. Given that this is a general-purpose encyclopedia, one which might be approached by people who aren't already familiar with either or both languages, I think the hatnote is warranted. [[User:Tisnec|Tisnec]] ([[User talk:Tisnec|talk]]) 22:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

:{{ping|Tisnec}} WP can't include every possible error made by some individual in a hatnote. It seems unlikely that the 2015 functional language Agda known mostly in academic circles would be confused with the 1983 procedural language. They're written and pronounced differently and they're in different application domains. The only reason I can think that they'd be confused is that Agda is not well known outside specialist circles, which is an argument ''against'' the hatnote. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 13:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

::[[WP:HATCONFUSE]] suggests that "these hatnotes should only be used when the ambiguity exists for a significant portion of the readership".

::Given what has been said, it seems to me that the status quo - hatnote on [[Agda]] but not on [[Ada (programming language)|Ada]] makes perfect sense. A significant proportion of the readership arriving at [[Agda]] will in reality be looking for the much more well-known Ada, while I am not sure a significant proportion of the readers of the more commonly read article will in reality be looking for the more obscure language. [[User:Felix QW|Felix QW]] ([[User talk:Felix QW|talk]]) 09:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

:::I agree, no hatnote needed on Ada. I'm not even sure it's needed on the other one. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 13:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

=== isEmbraced isby neededthe atEducation System? all ===

Did any colleges ever offer a course in ADA for the Computer Scientists or others interested? I Suspect NOT. ''"In 1991, the US Department of Defense began to require the use of Ada (the Ada mandate) for all software, though exceptions to this rule were often granted. The Department of Defense Ada mandate was effectively removed in 1997, as the DoD began to embrace commercial off-the-shelf ([[Commercial off-the-shelf|COTS]]) technology."'' I believe part of the mandates removal was the cost incurred by contractors as ADA was not getting taught in universities.[[User:Wfoj3|Wfoj3]] ([[User talk:Wfoj3|talk]]) 21:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if this is at all needed. It is a detail which language lawyers are interested in - most normal developers never notice the difference between a statement separator and statement terminator as the difference only show in the quality of error message. More important is the null statement which is <code>null;</code> and not <code>;</code>. Also <code>;;</code> is illegal in Ada. --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 06:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:This 1985 ACM article about the University of New Orleans adopting Ada as its primary programming language. (https://doi.org/10.1145/323275.323389)

== reads as an ad ==

:I wish I had a reference for the University of Southwestern Louisiana, now [[University of Louisiana at Lafayette|University of Louisiana Lafayette]] as of 2000, introducing Ada in its first programming classes for Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Telecomm Engineering curriculums circa late '80s, early '90s that I experienced.

:There were, according to this source as of spring 2000, MANY universities & colleges throughout the world introducing Ada as a foundational programming language. (http://www.seas.gwu.edu/faculty/mfeldman/ada-foundation.html) [[User:Mebobbob|Mebobbob]] ([[User talk:Mebobbob|talk]]) 16:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

:IIRC I had a one lecture introduction to Ada in a comparative programming languages course at Lancaster Uni in 1983/4.

:I was definitely taught Ada at the University of Kent at Canterbury in the late 1980s, this was a course contracted for by my employers, which I think they ran several times for us. Clearly UKC had the ability to teach Ada in-house, though I'm not sure if it was on the curriculum. I'm pretty sure Mid-Kent College was teaching it on the curriculum for their CompSci HND, later degree, which was very highly optimised for my employer - sites across the road from each other - as its students arrived for their industrial year already familiar with it.

:The issues around the Mandate removal were complex and it wasn't simply that Ada wasn't being taught, so much that many students felt they had better, wider, higher-paid opportunities using other languages, which were used across multiple industries, such as finance, whereas Ada largely restricted them to aerospace/defence/safety critical work, and therefore the courses weren't popular. [[Special:Contributions/86.14.138.8|86.14.138.8]] ([[User talk:86.14.138.8|talk]]) 19:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

== Hoax language ==

This article reads as an ad - it doesn't even touch any criticism of Ada and fails to mention why this language is so rarely used, outside of US Military --[[Special:Contributions/195.113.21.159|195.113.21.159]] ([[User talk:195.113.21.159|talk]]) 13:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

what about 1st party claims it was a disinformation hoax? see https://www.plover.com/~mjd/misc/hbaker-archive/sigplannotices/gigo-1997-04.html [[User:Gcbwiki|Gcbwiki]] ([[User talk:Gcbwiki|talk]]) 04:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

:I'd point out that that was published in early April, and that even Reddit classifies it is humo(u)r. [[Special:Contributions/81.149.7.120|81.149.7.120]] ([[User talk:81.149.7.120|talk]]) 22:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

=== maybe because there noting wrong worth mentioning ===

== Subtypes and range ==

I use Ada in daily and there is nothing I like to criticise. At least nothing substantial worth mention. Note that when I was using C++ there was a lot I liked to criticise about C++.

In the subtypes box, Hours is defined as "range 0 .. 12;" with the comment "-- at most 12 Hours to work a day". However 0..12 in most notations covers 13 hours... is the article correct? [[Special:Contributions/81.149.7.120|81.149.7.120]] ([[User talk:81.149.7.120|talk]]) 22:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I could try to dispels some of the [[Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt|FUD]] around Ada like:

:Hours is defined further up as a mod 24. The subtype is Working_Hours, which is used to keep track of a person's hours spent at work, where the comments give this particular employer's rules that Monday through Friday are the only working days and someone can work anywhere from no hours to twelve hours during any of those days. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 22:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

; to expensive : there is a free Ada compiler as part of the [[GNU_Compiler_Collection]].

; to complex : the ISO standard for Ada 2005 is a whooping 3.8% larger then the ISO standard for C++ 2003. And with current amount CPU and Memory available it does not matter any more.

; no programmers : The only which has some merits. But it's not the languages fault that companies do not want to train there workforce.

; only used by US Military : Well, look [http://www.adacore.com/home/ada_answers/lookwho here] and [http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html here]. Railways, Bank, Aviation, '''Non'''-US Military. You have fallen for a [[Hoax]].

But then criticism sections have been discouraged on Wikipedia as such chapters only turn into [[Troll (Internet)|troll]] magnets. We leave it as it is. Of course, if you find any substantially wrong with Ada which is not a [[Hoax]] or [[Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt|FUD]] then let me know.

== AIMS is not the 777's fly-by-wire system ==

--[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 11:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken out the incorrect claim the fly-by-wire system on the Boeing 777 is the Honeywell AIMS, AIMS is the Flight Management System, covering stuff like cabin displays and maintenance, the actual fly-by-wire system on the 777 is the Primary Flight Control System, produced by BAE Systems Rochester, which fortunately was also written in Ada, so I've substituted that (full disclosure, I was part of the PFCS software team). I've expanded the comment with various other flight control/fly-by-wire systems written using Ada.[[Special:Contributions/86.14.138.8|86.14.138.8]] ([[User talk:86.14.138.8|talk]]) 21:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

: So, at least, include some part, explaining or mentioning, why is Ada NOT widely used today. (It is not.) Are there historical reasons - and FUD? Probably ... but it should be, at least, mentioned. I won't do it, I don't have the needed knowledge. And I never said there is something ''substantially wrong with Ada''. --''[[Aum|Have a nice day]]''. [[User:Running|Running]] 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

== Widely used??? ==

:: I love to. But you know, the main reason that most new Projects in our company are done in Java is the ''"replaceable-ability"'' of Java-programmers. Yes Hire and Fire as main reason for choosing a programming language. And this is Switzerland where people are nice to each other. But ranting about the management won't be very helpful explanation.

I work with Lockheed Martin on Fighter Aircraft software safety systems and can tell you that in the fighter world Ada is dead. No new effort in the last 10 years has used Ada. I strongly dispute the claim of this article that it is widely used for safety critical systems based on two things: 1) my own experience and work with the fighter aircraft industry for over 42 years now 2) the reference to very dated articles in this article on Wikipedia - one is dated 1996 and another 2014! Please remove this claim or make it specific to certain products. [[Special:Contributions/104.190.180.66|104.190.180.66]] ([[User talk:104.190.180.66|talk]]) 17:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

:: Well maybe I can still fit something into the history section why Ada had slow to start and was never quite able to acquire the critical mass to become a "mass-market" programming language. --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 07:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

:@[[User:104.190.180.66|104.190.180.66]]

::[http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/~jjamor/research/magazines/2005-upgrade-amor-barahona-robles-herraiz.pdf] gives lines of code in Debian 3.1. Ada is the 11th most common language. Given the number of languages around since Ada was created and in use when Ada was created, I don't see the question as why it's NOT widely used today; the question is why is it so widely used when so many other languages have bit the dust? Sadly enough, the answers are just as arbitrary one way as the other in many ways; Ada is not used because C (and C++ and then Java) and Unix won for various reasons, ranging from the arbitrary (AT&T's legal woes) to the historical (once C and Unix got a foot in the door, C++ was easy to switch to, then Java), to the value-based. On the other hand, why is Ada thriving and [[Modula-3]] dead? Because the DoD thrived and pushed their language and DEC died.

:I do not consider an information given by someone who is explicitly speaking about the American fighter world is valid for most contexts around the world. There are many fighter projects in industries which are external to the American or to the British fighter or aerospace industry which are known to have code running which involved Ada. The modernization efforts of the Saab Gripen are. Inevitably tied to that. Dassault and the Russian, Indian, Pakistani, Iranian and Chinese industries likely also still write enough code for such needs. Therefore I dispute the validity of this objection. [[Special:Contributions/2804:14D:7840:5CA0:1D54:C9D4:91B8:8C53|2804:14D:7840:5CA0:1D54:C9D4:91B8:8C53]] ([[User talk:2804:14D:7840:5CA0:1D54:C9D4:91B8:8C53|talk]]) 18:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

::Then please give some recent examples (programming started less than five years ago) of the use of Ada in these environments. It is easy to raise an objection but the claim in the article, if it is to be backed up, needs to show objective and specific instances of its wide spread usage.

::Based on the wording in the article - since it is widely used - this should prove trivial for you. Again, since widely used, you should have no problem finding numerous examples where the programming for these applications started within the last five years. [[Special:Contributions/104.190.180.66|104.190.180.66]] ([[User talk:104.190.180.66|talk]]) 19:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

:::Knoll. Omar. N. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:79C0:703:500:B065:C23:79FF:1B05|2A00:79C0:703:500:B065:C23:79FF:1B05]] ([[User talk:2A00:79C0:703:500:B065:C23:79FF:1B05|talk]]) 16:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

== “Extremely strong typing” in lede ==

::In summary, the mere claim that Ada is not widely used today is biased by a demand that to be widely used, you have to be one of a dozen top-dogs. To ask why it's not one of those languages is the wrong question; the real question should be "why is it where it is?", which at some point drags in the life and death of at least a dozen unrelated languages and operating systems.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 15:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a real computer programming term? Sounds very childish. [[Special:Contributions/2403:580B:D91F:0:D913:A7FA:C95B:F93|2403:580B:D91F:0:D913:A7FA:C95B:F93]] ([[User talk:2403:580B:D91F:0:D913:A7FA:C95B:F93|talk]]) 00:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

:::"Ada is the 11th most common language." - wow, count me surprised. --''[[Aum|Have a nice day]]''. [[User:Running|Running]] 12:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

== Lacks a Lot ==

Page on Ada lacks the history of the APSE, The attempt to also standardize hardware, Larry Druffle, and it would be nice to have the cut before the colored proposals (the next to last dozen and a half). [[Special:Contributions/198.123.48.76|198.123.48.76]] ([[User talk:198.123.48.76|talk]]) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

== Language constructs ==

I seem a lack for "Language constructs" or "Syntax and semantics" for this article, something that is found on other articles like [[Pascal (programming language)|Pascal]] or [[Eiffel (programming language)|Eiffel]]. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ARSHA|ARSHA]] ([[User talk:ARSHA|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ARSHA|contribs]]) 22:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: You find this info in the award wining [[wikibooks:Ada_Programming]]. The question here is: how much syntax and semantic is encyclopaedic and when do we cross line into advertising or micro-tutorials. And personally I think some articles already crossed that line --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 06:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

: I took the Pascal section on syntax shortened and converted it to Ada. --[[User:Krischik|Krischik]]&nbsp;^{[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]} 11:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

== The United States Air Force is not a reliable source? ==

Should we just delete all references to the USAF from WP while we're whitewashing this article? And BTW the ADA runtime comes fairly close to being an OS in its own right. [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 02:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

: First, we don't know anything about ADA. This is the article for Ada. We can't even tell if the article is speaking about the language, or something else.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 03:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

== Stuff removed from Boolean data type article ==

The following section was removed from the article [[Boolean data type]]:<br/>'''begin removed text'''

----

----

[[Ada programming language|Ada]] (defined in 1979, implemented in 1983) defines <code>Boolean</code> in the package Standard as an enumerated type with values <code>False</code> and <code>True</code> where <code>False</code> < <code>True</code>.

<source lang="ada">

type Boolean is (False, True);

p : Boolean := True;

...

if p then

...

end if;

</source>

The relational operators (<code>=</code>, <code>/=</code>, <code>&lt;</code>, <code>&lt;=</code>, <code>&gt;</code>, <code>&gt;=</code>) apply to all enumerated types, including <code>Boolean</code>. Boolean operators <code>and</code>, <code>or</code>, <code>xor</code>, and <code>not</code> are defined on <code>Boolean</code> and any declared subtype. The Boolean operators also apply to arrays of <code>Boolean</code> values.

----

----

'''end removed text'''<br/>Is there a place for this text in the Ada-related articles? Perhaps in the Wikibook? Thanks, and all the best, --[[User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] ([[User talk:Jorge Stolfi|talk]]) 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

== Unreliable source cited in Article ==

The source http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=325 is cited in the introduction as the source of the Former Secretary of the USAF blaming Ada for problems with many major military projects. The article claims that "the Defense Department specified in detail its own operating system, called ADA" and that it experienced problems "retain[ing] talent for ADA when careers were being made in DOS, Apple and LINUX." But Ada is not an OS; it is a programming language. Should such an uninformed source be considered reliable? [[User:ChrisPB|ChrisPB]] ([[User talk:ChrisPB|talk]]) 23:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

:It's written as an opinion piece, not to be confused with a factual presentation. The thing to do would be to see what the wider context is, and also whether there are corrobating sources. [[User:Tedickey|Tedickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 23:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

::Sure. Let's get an opinion on Ada, by somebody who's managed a department with more projects with more total Ada programmers at work at them, than Michael Wynne. Go right ahead. [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 02:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

:::That was a facetious comment, which doesn't address the point [[User:Tedickey|Tedickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 02:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

::::It's the opinion of a well informed public official, based on his exposure to classified information. But I will see if CRS, GAO or CBO have tried to total up the cost of this boondoggle. [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 02:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

::::: "Well informed"? Would you be saying that if he was complaining about the use of the military use of the [[M1 Abrams]] airplane when people were getting trained on 747s?--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 17:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::: Clarification: "the Defense Department specified in detail its own '''operating system''', called ADA" Anyone else see the glaring problem here? Ada is NOT an OS, so either the source isn't talking about Ada [the language], or he's really confused himself somewhere down the line. Do we even know for sure he was referring to the Ada language? --[[Special:Contributions/151.190.254.108|151.190.254.108]] ([[User talk:151.190.254.108|talk]]) 14:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Well, [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] asserts that the source is a "well informed public official", which makes him a [[WP:RS]] (only in the Wikipedia sense, of course), without making any points on whether Wynne actually is a suitable source. There probably are more well-informed sources [[User:Tedickey|Tedickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 20:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

== Java influences ==

In which aspects was Java influenced by Ada, and Ada 2005 influenced by Java? --[[User:Abdull|Abdull]] ([[User talk:Abdull|talk]]) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

: The big one was that Ada 2005 has Java-like interfaces.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 07:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

::That can't be true. The interfaces are from Ada 83, and at that time Java wasn't even conceived in a mystical hallucination. Of course Java borrowed it from Ada 83! Java copies some features from everywhere, but invents nothing by itself (the advantage of Java is JRE, which is outside Java). [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80">^m<u>bork³</u></span>]]!) 07:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I updated article accordingly. It's a really bad thing that such editor-inferred speculations are added as facts in the articles. All such alleged influences should be painstakingly cited by the original source(s), i.e. the inventors themselves or the design rationales that they produced. [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80">^m<u>bork³</u></span>]]!) 08:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

:::That can't be true, huh? "A major improvement is that Java-like interfaces are introduced thereby permitting simple multiple inheritance" from [http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rat/html/Rat-2.html the Ada 2005 rational]. I think it behooves you, before you get emotional about something, to check it first.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 08:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

::::1. OK, thanks for the link, I was wrong.

::::2. "behooves you"? Are you taking it personal?

::::Best wishes. [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80">^m<u>bork³</u></span>]]!) 11:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

::::FYI: The Java like interfaces are in Ada 2005. I was unaware of that version. [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80">^m<u>bork³</u></span>]]!) 11:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::Then perhaps when someone asked about how "Ada 2005 <nowiki>[was]</nowiki> influenced by Java", you shouldn't aggressively disagree and complain about how it's such a bad thing that "such editor-inferred speculations are added as facts", if you don't know about Ada 2005.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 20:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::''Aggressively?!'' Just make a backtrack and reconsider who behaved aggressively? Behave!! [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80">^m<u>bork³</u></span>]]!) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

==Object orientation==

I don't have time just now to add the info, but object orientation is performed by writing packages that provide access types referring to private records. These private records are accessed through functions (c.f. methods in C++ and other class-oriented OOPLs) allowed access to those records. The syntax is pretty much deviant from C++, but there are no syntax doublettes like C++:es struct/namespace/class semantic overlap nor Java:s class/interface semantic overlap. (In that meaning Ada95 is cleaner, which is my POV, and not citeable.) [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80">^m<u>bork³</u></span>]]!) 07:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

: The syntax in Ada 2005 is a lot more similar to that of C++.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 08:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

::Ada is a lot more similar to C++ than ''what''? Something is missing in your sentence. [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80">^m<u>bork³</u></span>]]!) 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Object orientation in Ada has nothing to do with access types. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/212.159.101.165|212.159.101.165]] ([[User talk:212.159.101.165|talk]]) 02:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:OK, I didn't mention access types. I just said "are accessed". [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80">^m<u>bork³</u></span>]]!) 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

== Smalltalk ==

The info box states that Ada95 has been influenced by Smalltalk. Is there a reference for that? I was just (unsuccessfully) trying to find out what features have been influenced, so some citation to follow up would be nice.

[[User:Ansgaard|Ansgaard]] ([[User talk:Ansgaard|talk]]) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

:Much of the discussion above is pretty funny in a weird kind of way - I find this symptomatic in software kind of articles on Wikipedia, I got some blatant lie reinserted some time ago for the reason that a subclause in my change note could be interpreted in the wrong way - other articles that are notoriously usually unreliable and [[WP:OR]] and unduly [[WP:SYNTH]]etic are religious and nationality articles. If you feel for it, remove Smalltalk, it's certainly from someones imagination, and if you're lucky, you won't be attacked from an ignorant moron. [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80">^m<u>bork³</u></span>]]!) 19:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

:: I will note that Rursus was equally certain that Ada95 wasn't influenced by Java.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 06:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

:::All object-oriented languages are "influenced" by Simula-67 and Smalltalk. But is there a specific connection between Smalltalk and Ada95? --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 21:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

:::: None that I can see. Smalltalk is a "pure" OO language, where everything is an object. So you can see where Java/C# inheret from Smalltalk. Ada is not designed in this way, so even though some concepts are the same between the two languages, I don't see a direct connection (unlike Pascal/C, where there are clear simmilarities). Unless someone has a source to the contrary, Smalltalk should probably be removed from the list of influencing languages. It should also be noted, the "Influenced" portion of the Smalltalk page makes no reference to Ada...(These should really be consistent across articles...) --[[User:Gamerk2|Gamerk2]] ([[User talk:Gamerk2|talk]]) 15:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

== Nice link ==

See [http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/Ada/Ada.html http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/Ada/Ada.html].

—DIV ([[Special:Contributions/138.194.11.244|138.194.11.244]] ([[User talk:138.194.11.244|talk]]) 06:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

I hope it isn't bad form to come in here and just say a big big thankyou to all Wikipedians!

First time I've had a through look at the *Talk* behind an article, and I learn a lot, from the

record.

~ Bryan O'Doyle <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.49.67.104|96.49.67.104]] ([[User talk:96.49.67.104|talk]]) 20:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Sentence about the Goto statement ==

The side remark that the goto statement is supported but seldom needed appears superfluous to me (hence I removed it but my edit was revoked). Here is my reasoning:

* Goto is supported in many languages, but it is a relict and never used (with maybe some extremely rare exceptions) (in 10 years of Ada programming I never needed it). As the "exit" statement is supported, I would claim that goto is in fact _never_ needed.

* The goto statement also exists in C/C++ and many other languages, yet it is not mentioned in the respective wikipedia articles.

* This article is by no means a complete account of Ada, and probably can't and shouldn't be, and there are thousands of more important things to add than something about the goto statement.

* The sentence reads to me like someone's attempt to portray Ada as an old-fashioned language (considering that it is not mentioned in articles about other so-called modern languages), which is why I do not like it in the current form.

I would therefore like to argue that the sentence can be removed. Please share your opinion :) [[User:Sfx42|Sfx42]] ([[User talk:Sfx42|talk]]) 23:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

: I've used the goto statement in Ada. Naturally the next maintainer removed it and broke the function.

: What I said in the edit summary was a little overboard; I said that Ada didn't need a goto statement because it had a while loop and an if-then. In fact, all program control can be implement with loop-end loop and if-thens (no functions necessary). At the same time, if you have code you're converting from a language with gotos to Ada, it's hard for a converter to avoid goto; many Java decompilers don't, despite producing illegal code.

: I don't see any reason why all control structures in Ada shouldn't be mentioned; I can see a reason to drop loop ... end loop, since that's just a while loop, but goto is semantically distinct from the other control structures.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 08:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)