https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COlCNQuZr0I

nemesis2u:
the much awaited big fight : ada ver C/C++

Verification is one of the biggest driving factors (and costs) in processor and programming language usage. All hardware and software must have a safety level attached to it, with the most critical functions (like avionics for autoland) considered "Level A" meaning such a failure of the avionics could be catastrophic. In order to achieve the stringent safety requirements for Level A software (which is often one such failure per 10^9 flight hours), the software and hardware need to be exhaustively tested to ensure nothing will ever go wrong. That includes covering every condition on every line of code. Most tools developed to work with your programming language and software architecture needs to be formally verified ( usually called "qualified" ) as well. Ada trumps here but C/C++ also is not far

Ada continues to exist because it is the most technically suitable language for the development and maintenance of high integrity systems with long shelf lives. Ada offers good support for mixed language systems (e.g. Ada for real time/high integrity system components and Java for GUI components. also unlike Ada C++ provides no support for real time systems.

Software Development vs Software Maintenance which one is the bigger pain in the ass ?
C/C++ will lead to lower development cost but Ada will lead to lower maintenance cost (60-80+% of the lifecycle costs of a software occurs in maintenance ). so take ur poison of choice (which is better slow poisoning or long poisoning )

C/C++ offer higher compiler/tool availability versus Ada hence its popularity ,but is popularity an alternate to security/safety concerns

Ada is more strongly typed than C++
(for those who dont know : In computer programming, programming languages are often colloquially classified as strongly typed or weakly typed . These terms do not have a precise definition, but in general, a strongly typed language is more likely to generate an error or refuse to compile if the argument passed to a function does not closely match the expected type. On the other hand, a very weakly typed language may produce unpredictable results or may perform implicit type conversion.) [strongly typed is better]


Several features make Ada ideal for compact and efficient embedded applications. One is support for multitasking within the language. Java offers similar support, but C and C++ turn it over to the operating system (OS), making it difficult to migrate applications because they are now tied to a particular OS and possibly a particular version of that OS.

while coding safety critical software's minimizing bugs is the key, and Ada does a better job at it than C and, to a lesser degree, C++.
Ada advantage is that it essentially eliminates buffer overflows and type errors. These vulnerabilities are the ones most commonly exploited by cyber attackers.They are chronic in C and C++. (“Many other programming languages provide runtime checking and in some cases even compile-time checking which might send a warning or raise an exception when C or C++ would overwrite data and continue to execute further instructions until erroneous results are obtained which might or might not cause the program to crash. Examples of such languages include Ada, Eiffel, Lisp, Modula-2, Smalltalk, OCaml and such C-derivatives as Cyclone, Rust and D. The Java and .NET Framework bytecode environments also require bounds checking on all arrays.”)

Ada error rate and cost-to-fix rates are lower than C and C++ therefor Reliability and Safety of Ada is better than C++

In addition, as early as 2002, the Certification Authorities Software Team (CAST) identified common problems with C++ in DO-178B-compliant applications including compile and run-time issues (the FAA recommends using DO-178B as the vehicle to demonstrate that software is airworthy). There are issues such as dynamic memory allocation in C/C++, which is forbidden, under the DO-178B standard, in safety-critical embedded avionics code. Some of the concerns with D)-178B have to do with the OO features of languages such as C++. Examples include: the overuse of inheritance, particularly multiple inheritance, which can lead to unintended connections among classes, and ambiguity resulting from Inheritance, polymorphism, and operator overloading through dynamic or run-time linkage.

but the F35 is coded using C/C++ ? ....so you are very very very wrong so stop the crap

my reply:

lolzzz during the initial phase Ada was seen as the technically superior and more robust language, but concern over the ability to successfully staff the software engineers required to develop the massive amounts of safety critical software caused the F-35 team to carefully look and finally to choose C and C++ for the implementation of safety critical software. Primary factors in this choice were training availability, tool support, and processor support. Another key factor was type casting, not as a language feature, but as a hiring feature. Many of the university students simply refused to work Ada as it was not seen as a marketable experience base.

result : on one hand critical software failures of F-35 happening time and again, still continuing.........

but on another hand Concerns with dynamic binding, polymorphism, and inheritance mechanisms have been dealt with largely in the coding standards(JSF AVC++ Coding Standards). For both C and C++ Static Code Analysis (SCA) tools have been used to ensure that restricted features are not utilized. Arguments about the lack of reliability in either C or C++ have been addressed by programming standards restrictions and SCA check. This was mainly done by developing a list of restrictions, to provide a method of enforcement (automated) and to perform code coverage during unit testing (in unit testing full structural coverage is required either at the object code level (for the highest reliability software) or at the source level (safety involved software).)

good nah ! trillon dollar question is how many countries have the ability to emulate it or gamble billions of dollars of hardware on successfully implementing C/C++ to safety critical systems ?

chinese8107:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7628746
F-35 uses c++ . they don't need many contries

nemesis2u:


did u even understand what i wrote , read it again . 40% (especially the last paragraph was all about how they went about implementing C/C++ in F35 and why they selected C/C++ in the first place ) of what i wrote is related to F35 C/C++ usage, its troubleshooting, implementation etc. and i said explicitly can any other countries take the same risk as the US took when they decided to use C/C++ in its trillion dollar fighter program. software development accounted for almost half the amount.

SMH
u should atleast read what i write and then understand it clearly before replying

only a experienced coder will understand what i wrote , ru a programmer ?
i doubt that

chinese8107:


guess why F-35 uses c++

f-22 not,because they don't want to leak their" core secret"
F-35 is for sale,or co-develop with other contries.