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: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-07 21:52:25 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B70C621.DC9A8F35@worldnet.att.net> From: James Rogers X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; 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> <3B6F3216.F410BBFF@home.com> <3B6F3FAE.B9B9FFCF@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B6F5BB2.A879B933@worldnet.att.net> <3B7077A3.77D2BBE5@globetrotter.qc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 04:52:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.74.160.2 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 997246345 12.74.160.2 (Wed, 08 Aug 2001 04:52:25 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 04:52:25 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11576 comp.lang.c++:80845 comp.lang.c:72829 Date: 2001-08-08T04:52:25+00:00 List-Id: Chris Wolfe wrote: > > So you are sort of correct, there are some features of Ada that > would require minor changes to the 'default' C++ compiler > behaviors to provide with the same level of hand-holding provided > by Ada. I have already encountered compilers that do most of > these, and I would bet that the rest have been implemented > somewhere. And none of these extensions are actually standard C++. They are not part of the standard or the standard libraries. This means that you will need to re-implement them if you are forced to switch to another compiler because you are porting your code to another system. Note that I never claimed that C++ could not produce equivalent code. I merely stated that I thought it would require a lot more work, what you called "overwhelming effort". Your solutions appear to require the creation of a number of classes such as Positive, and your Parts_Buf. Of course, the Parts_Buf class you defined does not begin to implement a protected object, only a circular buffer. The answer "Stock utils lib." is a little vague for me. Which lib provides the full capabilities of an Ada protected object, including entry queuing, exclusive update access with multiple read only access? Which lib provides the same for all common OS combinations supporting threads, so that recoding is not needed as part of the porting effort? Your example and explanation clearly convinces me that the C++ effort to produce an equivalent to an Ada protected object would require a significant effort. This is not an argument against C++. This is merely an set of capabilities not yet implemented as part of the C++ standard. Achieving similar capabilities is difficult in most languages. Jim Rogers Colorado Springs, Colorado USA