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: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-08 16:10:01 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!not-for-mail
From: Chris Wolfe <cwolfe@globetrotter.qc.ca>
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: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 19:08:08 -0400
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston
Message-ID: <3B71C658.A7B88F71@globetrotter.qc.ca>
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu>
 <3b6a453c.1193942215@news.worldonline.nl> <9keejl$fhj@augusta.math.psu.edu>
 <slrn9mlqp3.56q.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <tmlvjb6uoskvf6@news.supernews.com>
 <slrn9mnbld.8ak.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3c30da40.0108060848.796d9bd9@posting.google.com>
 <slrn9mtjr3.bbs.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3B6F3216.F410BBFF@home.com> <3B6F3FAE.B9B9FFCF@globetrotter.qc.ca>
 <3B6F5BB2.A879B933@worldnet.att.net> <3B7077A3.77D2BBE5@globetrotter.qc.ca>
 <3B70C621.DC9A8F35@worldnet.att.net>
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:11648 comp.lang.c++:81088
 comp.lang.c:73023
Date: 2001-08-08T19:08:08-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

James Rogers wrote:
[snip]
> 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.

Sorry, I assumed you caught the "using appropriate (non-standard)
templates" clause (more accurately it would have been: templates,
classes, and functions).

Comparing the standard libraries in most languages with a
language and library designed specifically for safe use would be
pretty stupid. The "stock utils lib" is the library of stuff that
I ported from Ada when I originally moved to C++ (my standard,
not the world's).

My big reason for using C-like languages at the moment is the
lack of verbosity. Now if only I could get Haskell-like syntax in
a procedural language...

Chris