Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Sep 2012 20:04 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Thread beginning with comment 533879
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-18
I don't understand why Ada never took off, it had everything you find in the modern languages: tasks, low-level bit manipulation, OS assembly language interface, packages, OOP-like, even its own build dependency system. And I just like it.
I bought the book for Ada 2005, and being the C++ fanboy I am, I seriously wish C++ adopted a whole bunch of Ada features. It seemed really strange with C++11 that there was all the hype about concepts that were ditched due to difficulty when Ada has a much more clean way to specify template requirements. Was it seriously that hard for the standards committee to look outside of C-like languages?
The only thing that still puts me off Ada is it's OO implementation. I still can't get my head around the rules of elaboration or the rules for getting the [type].[method] syntax to work.