| I rather like Ada. It certainly does have some issues, but I'm not sure I agree completely with all of your points anymore. I have had similar thoughts in the past though. - In practice I don't find the case insensitive identifiers to be much of an issue. GNAT (and perhaps other compilers?) will check for consistent casing if you ask. I'm pretty happy with that middle ground - things that look different are different, and you don't have identifiers that vary by case only. - You're right that it was designed to be able to accept a garbage collector, but it was never intended to be required either. If you really wanted it, you could try targeting the JVM. I haven't found anybody with much experience with it, but it does look like an option. Apparently there is also a 13 year old patch for GCC GNAT [1] but I imagine that's mostly a historical curiosity. - I've gone back and forth on this one. It basically treats classes as any other type, which I like. It would seem pretty strange if you had to change to completely different syntax structure for declaring a tagged or non-tagged type. So if you wanted to do a more traditional 'class' syntax for tagged types, you'd need them for non-tagged types too. That could be both strange and nice. But that wouldn't really fly with the way primitive operations work right now - it can be primitive for more than one non-tagged type, so where does it go? It's actually a pretty complex issue that would have a large impact on some core parts of how the language works. The rules around this sort of stuff are probably some of my least favorite parts of Ada. It's a lot more implicit than the rest of the language, which has gone out of the way to be explicit. I don't think it has an easy syntax-level fix though. Hopefully Nim works out for you, but I found it seemed to mostly be inspired by a few of the complaints you just raised about Ada. It also seems to lack the things I enjoy most about it. [1] http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/gnat-gc/ |