I give you the lead role, with pleasure, if you really want the status quo. Practically all criticism found here have been by people talking through their hat about Ada. People who still pick up some old stories hidden somewhere in their cabinet to drag Ada in the mud when they see fit. Can it achieve the same results? Sure thing, this is no Ruby!
The coupling of toolchains is, after 40 years, still hyper brittle. Most are not and they are right, because a lot of complexities found in these projects are self-sustained. We have better things to do with our lives. Are Python, Ruby, JavaScript etc good considerations for real projects, airplanes, game engines, medical applications? Sure, as in underperforming prototypes released to market went wrong.
My Netflix tv app makes for a good flagship of such crappy software that probably millions of people hate Oh I forgot web serving millions. Now back to real projects. The Gnat Programming Studio is a real project, available on GitHub, akin to something like Visual Studio, and its made in Ada by a company orders of magnitude lighter than Microsoft. The thing is tight. But one would have to try it, inspect its code, before arguing Ada cannot be used for real projects! Will it happen? I do not think so: rubypanther already knows we do not go there.
It is not only the coder; Ada has a lot to do with it. It does, technically, Integer and Float. After working with ADA for over 5 years on flight deck software, a lot of the points you make in favor of ADA are actually things that infuriate me.
This language is great if you are writing a small embedded system, but when your codebase is literally in the millions of lines and half of them are syntax and boiler plate, you start to wish for things like inferred typing. Yes… ok so why all the crashes? Because the house is made with a building code and liberties. In this context you have more or less three types of willful agent: 1 the guy who knows and studies at night the building codes. Most of the time no-life, he is the irreplaceable master.
Whatever, he is doing hours. God, turns out your naming is complete nonsense, you had a thing for const correctness and still your things are glitchy, not working properly, in the actual matter of logic and architecture. You know why? I just want to understand straight up what you, an employe number, did.
To wrap this up. Add onto this the quality of MSVC6, Intellisense worked for about 1 week on each project before it gave up forever, it would also mess up formatting aligning all braces or deleting braces making it a nightmare to read or find bugs. There is nothing incorrect in capitalizing all the letters in a word. You may believe that it is stylistically inferior to other ways of writing, but making stylistic claims that purport to be semantic claims is an incorrect application of English grammar concepts.
I say concepts instead of rules, because there is no curator to declare rules. There are competing style guides, but they have to compete for real reasons. DragonEgg is dead and has been for years. They are available for further subtyping, you really should define your own types, but you can use these as is. Hope to see this in future posts! Ada is also used in another domain where any little mistake can lead to serious consequences : trains! I meant to say that, if military, avionics and medical are obviously the main fields that come to mind when thinking of critical systems that could cause injury or death, ground transportation systems are to be considered in the same category.
Its the only language I use for hacking projects. I ported both of those to targets they did not originally support. The STM32L4 series. That reminds me. The MakeWithAda contest just began yesterday. Any level of experience is welcome!
Its ARM v6 so code density is a bit worse. I still wish I had the bandwidth back in college to learn Ada. Strict typing is a pain. It unnecessarily causes program compilation to be more likely to fail until each and every equivalent type is renamed or conversion routines written!!!! Implicit conversions for standard types keeps the source code free of calls to conversion routines, calls which would make the program harder to understand.
Why should I choose Ada over Rust for my next project? Looking at the Steelman requirements, the only thing missing from Rust appears to be a complete definition of the language. Rust is very not good at that. Ada has unmatched abstraction capabilities, and extremely rich generics. Also error handling and containment is so much easier in Ada. First of all, having to return status codes from every function you need error recovery for is really painful the Rust approach.
Otherwise, in Rust you have to panic, which are not designed to be caught and dealt with. They are like exceptions that are meant to terminate the program, which if you ask me, is pretty insane. The exception mechanism in Ada is much more practical than in most C-like languages. This makes Ada software, especially large systems, able to handle errors without going down at all. Rust is not very good at that. Lastly, Rust was created to deal with the same kinds of problems that Ada was designed to deal with over 30 years ago.
And Ada has been not just continually updated that entire time, it has been used IRL for that entire time. The truth is, Rust is basically necessary if what you want is reliable software. And in the world of programming language, what winds popularity contests are: 1. Looks like C 2. New and shiny 3. Yes that was a typo! As in, if you really care about building reliable software, Ada is very obviously a superior choice in relation to Ada. The whole debate about the language definition seems a bit silly to me; C is so well defined that only retired or effectively-retired-senior-levels memorize it.
And support engineers, but mostly because they have to sound Authoritative. It seems to me that the set of Best Practices being defined is both more important, and more practicable. If you treat warnings as errors, you probably never even tried to do those things.
You truly are clueless. Of them, one house wrote code that could kill people if the code supplied the wrong pharmaceuticals to the wrong patient or order up the wrong procedure or protocol for a surgery.
It was literally life or death to get the code right, from both a moral and legal perspective. Lots of people all at once. You can see from my experience, I am not at all for slinging code out fast and dealing with bugs later, and would never hire or collaborate with anyone with that attitude. The availability of great tools is a must in the dev world. There are not enough ADA devs to encourage the open source or proprietary world to provide and evolve the best tools for ADA. Also, where do you find ADA developers?
And when they come on board how long will the stay before leaving for high paying jobs using modern software. For example, if you are developing embedded software, you usually only need your compiler and debugger. Sadly, sometimes those may be the only tools that your work may provide to you regardless!
Ada helps to prevent many common bugs found in other more popular languages, so your time in the debugger will tend to be less. That also means less cost for maintenance and helping to avoid looking bad to the customer. But let me raise a question, do some of the great tools you have in mind around because they are helping to compensate for deficiencies in the more popular languages? This is the wrong thinking. First of all, a company should hire people who possess important domain knowledge and who can adapt to different things, such as tools, processes and even computer languages.
If a person can only think and write in computer language X, then they are limiting themselves. That is ridiculous! There are far more significant reasons why someone would leave e.
I knew the language well enough to know how to write efficient and reliable code, elegantly presented. There was a compiler option to provide equivalent pseudo-assembler code to check the efficiency of alternative equivalent code constructs, of which there were always many.
Fascinating language, with a huge number of nestable primitive operations. It worked best with an IBM terminal, Selectric-based with a special typeball which could create the operation symbols by backspacing and overstriking.
Like a generalized computed solution of n equations in n unknowns in 1 brief line. I wrote my first device drivers on Z80 systems in assembly language, using a lot of my own macros and subroutines.
Those constructs began to look like a higher level language to me, and the discipline that was forced upon the coding came from the narrow capabilities of the device, based on its design and implementation. Of course, my code was familiar to me but foreign to others. Then I tried two languages — Ada and Forth. The point is that programming languages are written for humans, not computers. Eventually, computers will code themselves and use virtual systems analyst AI to get the specifications.
I remember a s MIPS compiler that would not only find basic coding problems but also correct them. Now, IDE editors can predict your code while you write it. This all points to machines eventually solving many of the development problems we have seen over the past 70 years. Of course, there will be new problems, too. After all, what would life be without problems to solve? Hope you are not talking about context aware word completion.
While creating an Ada binding can be a challenge, some of that challenge is because of the questionable C prototype that existed in the first place.
Questions such as: Is that pointer parameter for a single item or a list? Is NULL allowed? Fortunately, once you figure all that out, your Ada binding can impose the proper restrictions e. This can be worthwhile if you expect to reuse the bindings on other projects. Ada is IMHO too coupled to the Pascal-alike general syntax that it could incorporate the later concept of object-oriented progamming in a clean, fluent way.
Using the concepts of object-oriented abstract datatypes one can create datatypes which do much more for verifying their setting than just range checks. Another important aspect for the safety aspect in modern big programs is the clarity of the code. And for this purposes objects representing clean concepts on the current abstraction level in combination with objects representing abstract datatypes for the arguments are very valuable.
Combine this with operator overloading clarity! Using these one can create register content values from clear, abstract notations at compile time. The language already supported abstract data types since the beginning and the OOP features were a natural incremental enhancement to it. According to the ADA Amendments Act of , covered entities should interpret the ADA broadly to include as many disabilities as possible and protect as many people as possible.
Under the ADA, an impairment needs to be a physiological or mental disorder. Depression, stress, and similar conditions are only sometimes considered impairments under the ADA. Whether depression and stress are considered impairments depends on if they result from a documented mental or physiological disorder or if they result from personal life or job pressures.
The impairment must substantially limit at least one major life activity. Under most employment legislation, such as Age Discrimination in Employment Act or Title VII, it is fairly obvious whether a person is a part of a protected class. However, under the ADA, it is a bit more complicated to determine whether a person is part of a protected class. A person is protected under the ADA against discrimiation for employment opportunities. State and local government and other public entities apply the title ii to labor unions and help people with disabilities.
The ADA's first definition of disability states that a disabled person is someone who has a mental or physical impairment that prevents participation in major life activities. If an individual has a record or history of such an impairment, he is considered disabled. Finally, if the individual is regarded as having a mental or physical impairment, the individual is considered disabled under the ADA's first definition of disability.
The updated guidelines changed this threshold, suggesting that more people in advanced stages of CKD can now safely use an SLGT-2 inhibitor. Some people, however, may not respond well to treatment with an SGLT-2 inhibitor. In this case, finerenone Kerendia , a recently approved non-steroidal MRA drug , can alternatively be used to improve both kidney and heart outcomes.
These updates are posted in Chapter 11 of the ADA diabetes care guidelines. A combination of medications using two or more different types of drugs, has been effective in helping people manage their diabetes.
This year, however, recommendations suggest that a combination of the two should be considered to lower risk even more. The new guidelines also now recommend Wegovy semaglutide 2. For those with type 2 who take insulin, however, using Wegovy at the same time may increase the risk for hypoglycemia.
The drug can still be an effective method to achieve some weight loss, but people should get educated on the signs, symptoms, and risk of hypoglycemia before starting this medication.
The guidelines also recommend managing glucose through more than just carbohydrate-counting. Regardless of the amount of carbohydrate in the meal plan, people should focus on eating high-quality and nutrient-dense carbohydrate sources that are high in fiber. Both children and adults should limit the amount of refined or processed carbs they eat that include added sugars, fat, and salt and instead focus on getting their carbs from vegetables, legumes, fruits, dairy milk and yogurt , and whole grains.
These updates are posted in Chapter 8 of the ADA diabetes care guidelines. The guidelines also include using diabetes technology in hospital settings. The Standards of Care explains that Time in Range, Time below Range, and Time above Range are all useful tools to help healthcare professionals with medical decision-making. These metrics can also help people with diabetes in their day-to-day diabetes management. While in past years the Standards encouraged healthcare providers to look at how often a person experiences or is at risk for hypoglycemia, the recommendations now include hypoglycemia education and adjustment of therapy.
The conversation does not always have to result in a therapeutic change, but alerting people to focus on their Time below Range can help people assess and act quickly. These updates are posted in Chapter 6 of the ADA diabetes care guidelines.
This year, the ADA expanded this recommendation to include people who take only long-acting insulin often referred to as basal insulin. Research on CGM use in people with type 2 diabetes indicates that the devices can help those on basal-only insulin improve their day-to-day glucose management. The guidelines also recommend CGM for all children with type 1 and type 2 diabetes who use rapid-acting insulin.
The guidelines expand recommendations for diabetes technology use among all children who use rapid-acting insulin. You can learn more about these AID systems at our resource page here. Before the COVID pandemic, people with diabetes were not always allowed to use their CGMs, insulin pumps, and AID systems while hospitalized, but the guidelines for using these devices have become more flexible in recent years to prevent the spread of COVID, though they vary from institution to institution.
The ADA also lowered the age to screen for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes to 35 years, encouraged healthcare providers to individualize care, and recommended COVID vaccines for all adults with diabetes. The ADA now recommends that adults who do not have diabetes symptoms should be screened for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes starting at age He presumably had diabetes for a number of years but never knew it.
0コメント