I remember reading ealier that one of the reasons the Ada language didnt become very popular is that the famous computer scientist Tony Hoare bashed it at one of his speaches. he said that exaceptions would be the downfall of computers. HA! i wonder what he feels like now with Java,.Net,etc.,etc. being so succesful with exceptions.
Yes, the only language that was deemed good enough for the DoD sucks.
Well, at least that's my opinion.
I can understand why DoD selected this language. It has very readable syntax, for the most part you don't really need to know the language to understand the code. It is ultra-strong typed. It has runtime checks for arithmetic overflows, out-of-bound accesses, etc. This should all limit the number of bugs, and as a result improve safety.
But for me, its syntax is bad because of extreme verbosity. Mathematical notation is very succinct for a reason. Programming languages should be the same. I don't care if non-programmers can understand what's going on.
I don't like its ultra-strong typing, it's a pain in the ass, really. Lots and lots of code that does basically nothing. But probably I'm biased as I'm more into dynamic languages recently.
Runtime checks are nice, but how they compare to modern VM environments?
I like languages where there's a good blend between easy to type quickly and easy to read quickly. I also prefer strongly typed languages, though, but like Abramus I don't think there should be runtime checks like that, at least not in release builds.