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: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-08 16:44:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!chnws02.mediaone.net!chnws06.ne.mediaone.net!24.128.8.202!typhoon.ne.mediaone.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B71CEEC.D5A9D001@mediaone.net> From: Ed Falis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3 i686) 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> <3B6F5BF6.1E22543B@home.com> <3B706538.5AB33833@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B70BDA5.575D8E6A@home.com> <3B71C74E.505A8753@globetrotter.qc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 23:44:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.96.132.248 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: typhoon.ne.mediaone.net 997314275 65.96.132.248 (Wed, 08 Aug 2001 19:44:35 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 19:44:35 EDT Organization: Road Runner Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11651 comp.lang.c:73033 comp.lang.c++:81095 Date: 2001-08-08T23:44:35+00:00 List-Id: Chris Wolfe wrote: > > So we do the Ada thing: throw away the flexibility of the > language to force everyone to play safe. In case you missed it, > most C++ compiler also provide support for inline assembler: A) > if I need it, I can get it. B) if I don't need it, I can stick > with the safer stuff. Ada has a very different philosophy. Taking this statement out of context (given that I think your philosophy expressed in the rest of the message is quite sound), I still have to correct it. Most Ada compilers provide inline assembly language as well - it's part of the language standard. The only philosophical difference (I think) is safety by default vs safety by proactivity. As far as I can tell after a lot years working with it, there is no Ada thing oriented towards throwing away flexibility, nor towards force. But I've been known to be wrong - that's how I learn. - Ed