Still works like a charm (and still a bit slow, hehehe).
You talk like a real social scientist there
He's sooooo wrong. Every fucking moron on earth should have the right to own a gun! A rail-gun
Watch Snowpiercer - good movie.
I do somewhat disagree with the "insightful" moderation of your post, but also don't care, because I'm not coming to
1. It's written "Ada" not "ADA" (The language is named after the first name of Ada Lovelace)
2. Nobody has ever claimed that Ada is a "magic bullet", especially not people who program in Ada.
3. There is no reason to believe that programming a library in Ada would make it obsolete, as long as a proper interface to C is provided - which is very easy. I readily admit that there are problems with the licensing of the GNAT runtime system, though, as it is GPL or MGPL only.
4. Ada source code is always more readable than C source code, provided that you know both languages equally well, of course.
5. Ada can, of course, create libraries with parameter passing conventions compatible with C and callable from C. (To get all benefits of Ada you need a small runtime system, though.)
6. Programming in Ada does not take more time than programming in C. (Actual measurements have indicated the opposite, but let's not get into such details which are always contestable. Let's just say that both Ada and C are both at the slow side of the range.)
7. Ada and Spark were merely meant as examples, but ones I know well enough to be sure about the example.
8. I'm not claiming that C cannot be used safely, but only after an extensive and expensive validation phase (using automatized tools and code review), and for that reason alone it should never be the #1 choice for safety and security critical applications.
I agree with you that many people who talk about a "safe" language have "managed" languages with automated garbage collection in mind, but that many of these languages are not safe at all, nor is dynamic memory allocation a desirable feature in that context. But 30 years experience or not, your claim that security does not hinge on the choice of language is just not true. The language and its implementation (+compiler test suites and validation) are an important part of the overall security and safety. So are management, validation and testing tools, the skills of the programmers, etc., of course.
No human could write out a literal blow-by-blow history of the Universe and no human could ever read such an accounting.
Why not? At least you should try to give some reasons!
He would obviously need to give an allegorical account of what happened in the past and not a literal one.
Obviously? Again, care to give any reasons? Why allegorical? It's not at all obvious, especially since shortened != allegorical, concise != allegorical, abstract != allegorical, and so forth. Why should a god dictate us the history of the universe and additionally shroud it in mystery up to about the highest level possible? It makes no sense!
We're in the 21 Century and you are still figuring out ways how to interpret phrases like "women were really created by a rib surgically removed from the first man" along the lines of "people should act this way" (what way? like spare ribs?)? No offense, but you "modern, moderate, feelgood" Christians really make me shake my head.
Why not talk about about the great Matma, an inferior level, the mysterious Wumpus, or the Flying Spaghetti monster instead?
You're right that skills are very important, of course, but the language matters a lot. OpenSSL would have far less bugs if it had been written in Ada with critical sections in Spark and some formal validation, for example.
There is no perfect programming language for all purposes and languages are more or less suited for different purposes. Beware the language aficionado who has an excuse for every deficiency of his favorite language
I would like to start with a NoSQL solution for scaling
And there it is, the proverbial premature optimization
Wait a minute! Didn't they say 'nearly unbreakable'?
That implies it's breakable.
How do you know that? Clairvoyance?
For all we know by now it's possible and not implausible to assume that MITM attacks are conducted routinely by various intelligence agencies across the world. SSL is broken. You should not rely solely on CAs anymore. Use physically delivered security tokens (such as encrypted random data on a USB stick) and/or the trust model of ssh instead.
Stop making a fool of yourself, you've already shown to be wrong.
Now, what makes the US laws better than the Turkish laws ?
Answer: The fact that US law doesn't allow for censoring of the views of political opponents by the government, whereas new Turkish laws have just provided the means for that.
Moreover: Court decisions are not always taken in a democratic way, you are mixing up jurisdiction with legislation. And not all laws that get passed by the legislative in every country are democratic either. Laws themselves are only democratic if they are based on democratic principles. Finally, censorship is not a relative concept. There are different degrees of censorship in different countries that can be measured quite easily.
People do not want to get filmed by strangers without their consent, be it with a phone, camera, or Google glasses. What's so hard to understand about this? Did you grow up in a household with a public toilet cam or what?
I don't know which anti-social world you live in, but I have never met anyone who did not have a problem with a phone pointed at him by a stranger without asking - or a camera, for what its worth.