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: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-06 17:10:57 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: <3B6F3216.F410BBFF@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++ Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. References: <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3b6a453c.1193942215@news.worldonline.nl> <9keejl$fhj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3c30da40.0108060848.796d9bd9@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:10:57 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.193.224 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc2.on.home.com 997143057 24.141.193.224 (Mon, 06 Aug 2001 17:10:57 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 17:10:57 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11429 comp.lang.c:72590 comp.lang.c++:80490 Date: 2001-08-07T00:10:57+00:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol wrote: > On 6 Aug 2001 09:48:33 -0700, Mark Wilden wrote: > > randhol+abuse@pvv.org (Preben Randhol) wrote in message news:... > >> > >> I'll like a parachute to open always rather than that it opens 1ms > >> faster, but at occasions fail to work althoghter. > > > > So would I, but this has nothing to do with the point I made. > > Yes it was. Ada in itself is not a slower language. Though the extra > security of runtime checks like boundary checks will cost a bit. C > doesn't have this. Your point was that speed was more important than the > extra security. I don't agree. Not only that, C/C++ _cannot_ provide those checks. To include those checks, requires that someone provide them, whether they be assert() macros or some other means. This means that it is also possible that the assert macros can be incorrectly coded, and never triggered when intended. The STL argument does not hold water either. If you look through any C++ project, somewhere, someplace, there will be naked references to at least char arrays, and possibly arrays of ints and other types. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://members.home.net/ve3wwg