while maybe that is fallacious to invalidate later appearances ive written pascal and formalish lisp before not ada spark thus the questions
what isnt fallacious is to call out how broken and fundamentally flawed later appearances are in retrospect on site with a lisp nomenclature as comparison but pltp has its own fundamental faults too down to the implementation which is important here
im not sure who 1-san is even trying to contact >>8-chan
but i believe they wanted information on a lispish take so its a little weird to not mention something like pltp
Rust does give you a higher baseline for reasoning about mutable state when compared to stock Ada, and the borrow checker is far less difficult to work with than SPARK.
ive never even had to patch rust code yet but ill assume unsafe mode makes some of this invalid https://users.rust-lang.org/t/unsafe-rust-how-do-i-inform-the-compiler-of-side-effects/62345 but the borrow checker is still intact since ive studied the borrow checker and how it should be passive how does this compare to sparks do you have to manually write borrow checks in and play with gibberish that doesnt explain why something has wrong references
a notice for >>8-chan 1-san makes use of :^) when describing ada spark they mean to use a language related to agencies like how ada came from a dod initiative
im not sure of a "safety language" 1-san could use that "glows" but i do know unlike a majority of formal lisps usually these languages have use in real cases where complexes are getting destroyed and lifes snuffed out its much different from ivory tower trying to demonstrate something
maybe if >>8-chan is willing to be a clown today consider recommending one of those languages you can barely find traces of on the internet that is also like a lisp but doesnt have to be lisp