From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-01 22:00:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc2.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B68DE74.2F9E5928@home.com> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <5ee5b646.0108010949.5abab7fe@posting.google.com> <%CX97.14134$ar1.47393@www.newsranger.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 05:00:34 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.193.224 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc2.on.home.com 996728434 24.141.193.224 (Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:00:34 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:00:34 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11032 comp.lang.c:71519 comp.lang.c++:79247 comp.lang.functional:7147 Date: 2001-08-02T05:00:34+00:00 List-Id: Dale Stanbrough wrote: > Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > Languages with checks are great, but they don't compensate for bad > > programming. > > Well, I suspect that this is purely conjecture on your part. My equally > valid conjecture (actually possibly better, because I've seen lots > of students use C and Ada) is that better languages do result in > better code. Errors in code (such as array overflow) is removed. > The code that is produced generally has fewer of these problems > (because they are picked up earlier, and are removed from > the program). > > Perhaps I should ask you this question... > > Would you be happy if the C language went back to not > enforcing/type checking parameters to functions? I have programmed in "B" ages ago, and it was virtually typeless (there was a distinction made for floating point values). I can tell you, the only thing that was worse to debug, was assembly language! Everything (but floats) were a word (on the Honeywell, that was a 36-bit word). To work with strings you did procedure calls... what a nightmare to debug. When C came along, it was a blessing. Why? Stronger type checking and other "language safeguards". But today, C is the "B" of yesteryear. Ada is a big improvement over C, even C++ and yes, Java. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://members.home.net/ve3wwg