ada-spark-rfcs VS julia

Original discussion was there, I guess you can post your comments to that PR to keep the discussion in one place.

I forgot where I saw it, but I do recall reading somewhere that the ARG had discussed whether a shorter revision cycle would be better or not. I wouldn't be surprised if the creation of this ( https://github.com/AdaCore/ada-spark-rfcs ) was inspired by that discussion.

Ada might be getting pattern matching soon too:

https://github.com/AdaCore/ada-spark-rfcs/blob/master/protot...

> I did some ADA in the past and yes, it is a nice language, but it lacks the modernity and a dynamic community like Rust. ADA did received some nice update to its specification, but, just like C++, it struggle / cannot really fit the latest innovation in programming language that easily.

I'm still learning both Ada and Rust, nevertheless I humbly disagree. The more I learn it and other "old" languages the more it looks to me like "modern" ones rediscover things that have been present in other languages for years.

The really significant difference I can see for now is that Ada is not focused so strongly on functional programming paradigm. Rust borrow checker is a strong success of course and was another significant difference, but latest SPARK got borrow checking capabilities too, AFAIK.

While Ada's open-source community is smaller, I find it as energetic and devoted to improving the ecosystem as Rust's. I have no idea about closed-source community, but in the past 4 years ArianeGroup [1], Airbus [2] and Nvidia [3] talked about choosing Ada for their high-integrity applications.

> And to be fair, it is fine. ADA is very much a "committee" language (its spec are ISO/IEC) instead of a "community" language (all the spec and rfc of Rust are on github and anyone can easily discuss them).

You can discuss Ada/SPARK RFCs here: https://github.com/AdaCore/ada-spark-rfcs . I think I once saw on Ada forum or chat that someone proposing changes to the language was simply invited to talk to people working on the standard, so it doesn't look like the language is developed in isolation or something.

> This makes it so that ADA doesn't get the attention, and the rapidity of innovation, that a language like Rust does, but ADA is mostly made for program that will need to be maintained in critical operations for decades with the code being maintainable and compilable far into the future.

I think that Ada adopted quiet quickly to standards set by Rust: lower entry barrier toolchain, compelling licensing, library distribution, RFCs, etc. And in terms of language features, in many areas it's not only on par, but ahead of competition. So you're less likely to see lots of changes, but they do happen nevertheless. I'm not saying Ada is perfect, of course. There are parts of it that other languages do better. No shame in that.

IMHO, the reason Ada is unknown to many people is a combination of its past, myths surrounding it, and general trend of people to follow trends. ;) But I currently find Ada/SPARK even more compelling option than Rust, even though I like both.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/ArianeGroup/posts/2872955946126067

There's a proposal to allow dot syntax for untagged types as well.

There's also an active discussion about adding format strings to the language here: https://github.com/AdaCore/ada-spark-rfcs/pull/77

34. Julia - $74,963

I don't believe there is any official documentation on this, but https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/49430 for example added prefetching to the marking phase of a GC which saw speedups on x86, but not on M1.

3. dispatch on all the arguments

the first solution is clean, but people really like dispatch.

the second makes calling functions in the function call syntax weird, because the first argument is privileged semantically but not syntactically.

the third makes calling functions in the method call syntax weird because the first argument is privileged syntactically but not semantically.

the closest things to this i can think of off the top of my head in remotely popular programming languages are: nim, lisp dialects, and julia.

nim navigates the dispatch conundrum by providing different ways to define free functions for different dispatch-ness. the tutorial gives a good overview: https://nim-lang.org/docs/tut2.html

lisps of course lack UFCS.

see here for a discussion on the lack of UFCS in julia: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/31779

so to sum up the answer to the original question: because it's only obvious how to make it nice and tidy like you're wanting if you sacrifice function dispatch, which is ubiquitous for good reason!

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/release-1.10/NEWS.md

Visit official site: https://julialang.org/

No. It runs natively on ARM.

julia> versioninfo() Julia Version 1.9.3 Commit bed2cd540a1 (2023-08-24 14:43 UTC) Build Info: Official https://julialang.org/ release

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/51086#issuecomment...

So while this "fixes" the issue, it'll introduce a confusing time delay between you freeing the memory and you observing that in `htop`.

But according to https://jemalloc.net/jemalloc.3.html you can set `opt.muzzy_decay_ms = 0` to remove the delay.

Still, the musl author has some reservations against making `jemalloc` the default:

https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2018/04/23/2

> It's got serious bloat problems, problems with undermining ASLR, and is optimized pretty much only for being as fast as possible without caring how much memory you use.

With the above-mentioned tunables, this should be mitigated to some extent, but the general "theme" (focusing on e.g. performance vs memory usage) will likely still mean "it's a tradeoff" or "it's no tradeoff, but only if you set tunables to what you need".

I have asked about Julia's reproducibility story on the Guix mailing list in the past, and at the time Simon Tournier didn't think it was promising. I seem to recall Julia itself didnt have a reproducible build. All I know now is that github issue is still not closed.

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34753

I don't really know what kind of rebuttal you're looking for, but I will link my HN comments from when this was first posted for some thoughts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861#31398796. As I said, in the linked post, I'm quite skeptical of the business of trying to assess relative buginess of programming in different systems, because that has strong dependencies on what you consider core vs packages and what exactly you're trying to do.

However, bugs in general suck and we've been thinking a fair bit about what additional tooling the language could provide to help people avoid the classes of bugs that Yuri encountered in the post.

The biggest class of problems in the blog post, is that it's pretty clear that `@inbounds` (and I will extend this to `@assume_effects`, even though that wasn't around when Yuri wrote his post) is problematic, because it's too hard to write. My proposal for what to do instead is at https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/50641.

Another common theme is that while Julia is great at composition, it's not clear what's expected to work and what isn't, because the interfaces are informal and not checked. This is a hard design problem, because it's quite close to the reasons why Julia works well. My current thoughts on that are here: https://github.com/Keno/InterfaceSpecs.jl but there's other proposals also.

Doesn't musl have the same issue? https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34726#issuecomment...

I also wonder about OSX's libc. Newer versions seem to have some sort of locking https://github.com/apple-open-source-mirror/Libc/blob/master...

but older versions (from 10.9) don't have any lockign: https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Libc/blob/Libc-99...