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: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-06 18:10:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!not-for-mail From: Chris Wolfe 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. Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 21:09:02 -0400 Organization: Queen's University, Kingston Message-ID: <3B6F3FAE.B9B9FFCF@globetrotter.qc.ca> 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> <3B6F3216.F410BBFF@home.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d150-159-162.home.cgocable.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11434 comp.lang.c:72599 comp.lang.c++:80501 Date: 2001-08-06T21:09:02-04:00 List-Id: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: > > Preben Randhol wrote: [snip] > > 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. Egad... my compiler's fictional! I suppose C and C++ _cannot_ provide garbage collection either? Or automatic serialization, or range-checked arithmetic types, or anything else that the compiler writer decides to include. It does not require any overwhelming work to convert an Ada program directly into a functionally identical C++ program using appropriate (non-standard) templates. Amazingly these templates also tend to spawn safe versions of the standard C functions. What was that drivel about pipe again? I have no issues with propaganda, but it being blatantly wrong is somewhat annoying. Chris