id Tech 4 / Doom 3 Is Being Rewritten In Ada

[ldo17]

Because games never crash, do they?

On the other hand, think of it as a great way to gain experience with Ada in a non-trivial application.

I toyed with it briefly a little while back. One thing I immediately noticed was the lack of anything resembling a printf function: instead, you must individually format and output every single string fragment, number etc with separate library calls.

I found this very fiddly. Either it’s Ada showing its age, or maybe there just isn’t any way to accommodate something like printf in safety-critical code...

[ldo17]

in the meantime c++ flies to mars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SdSKZFoUa8

A very restricted and tightly-managed subset of C++, you will notice.

[caligula]

Who said failed? How am I crying? Just saying we need more people because there's too many twats like you who can't look past their noses.

And I was right about the c++ zealotry, because you cannot accept anything other than c++ could do anything that language can. You cannot read, obviously. Proving my point that you are a complete moron.

I'd recommend taking a look at functional languages (e.g. Haskell and the dependently typed ones), if you want safety. Seriously, catching bugs at compile time > runtime checks, always. These languages can catch array bounds errors at compile time, their type system is also far superior compared to crappy Ada (e.g. ATS, Haskell with standard GHC extensions, Idris, ...). If you want some examples, study a bit what automated teorem proving can do, what is property based testing, look at the lambda calculus example in the wikipedia GADT article, go read Oleg's and Wadler's papers, read about linear typing and how it helps with resource management, read about STM and parallel programming in Haskell. In terms of safety and expressiveness, it's all like 1-2 steps above Ada and 2-3 steps above C++. With Haskell one big issue is the lack of a compiler targeting small platforms (GHC makes huge binaries, which is ok for ordinary apps but not embedded). I wouldn't use it for space shuttles now, but maybe in the future, assuming someone revives one of the smaller compilers. It seems impossible to have an argument about the languages when people only know their own favorites.

[caligula]

One thing I immediately noticed was the lack of anything resembling a printf function: instead, you must individually format and output every single string fragment, number etc with separate library calls.

I found this very fiddly. Either it’s Ada showing its age, or maybe there just isn’t any way to accommodate something like printf in safety-critical code...

Ada is a weak language. Dependently typed languages can implement a 100% type safe printf without ANY issues and the web is full of tutorials. Read about Cayenne, Idris and so on. It's just the weaker legacy imperative languages that can't. Their authors are seldom interested in type theory, which elegantly solves many typical language issues.

[pal666]

Who said failed?

you

How am I crying?

loudly

Just saying we need more people because

all smart people are not with you

you cannot accept that anything other than c++ could do anything that that language can.

lol, i hear this from someone who insists on rewriting software in ada. why rewrite if any language could do anything?

You cannot read, obviously.

obviously you are reaching incorrect conclusion because you can't think

[pal666]

A very restricted and tightly-managed subset of C++, you will notice.

yes, you restrict c++, not the other way around

[pal666]

all you need to know about haskell is: darcs is a vcs written in haskell. ghc is haskell compiler. ghc used darcs but switched to git

[pal666]

Ada is not obsolete

answer was long in limbo https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...528#post936528

[caligula]

all you need to know about haskell is: darcs is a vcs written in haskell. ghc is haskell compiler. ghc used darcs but switched to git

That's a bit lazy argumentation. You could also say that Git uses SHA1 for hashes, now SHA1 is unsafe thanks to Google so there, Git sucks. I used to use CVS, SVN, Mercurial, and finally had to move to Git like everyone else did. I'm not convinced Darcs is that good even if implemented in C/C++. Haskell is also primarily a research platform, but it's doing damn well. There are other variants like Clean and Eta which tried to please the commercial audience more. The language features are sound, lambdas have been adopted by almost all languages, Swift and Rust share tons of features with Haskell. I wouldn't call it a failure.

[pal666]

You could also say that Git uses SHA1 for hashes, now SHA1 is unsafe thanks to Google so there, Git sucks.

git's usage of sha1 is not unsafe, though git will upgrade

Haskell is also primarily a research platform, but it's doing damn well.

i am big fan of research platforms. do research there and incorporate results into real languages