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-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-08 17:46:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!not-for-mail From: Chris Wolfe Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:19:44 -0400 Organization: Queen's University, Kingston Message-ID: <3B71D720.13DF482B@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> <3B6F3FAE.B9B9FFCF@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B6F5BF6.1E22543B@home.com> <3B706538.5AB33833@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B70BDA5.575D8E6A@home.com> <3B71C74E.505A8753@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B71CEEC.D5A9D001@mediaone.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:11656 comp.lang.c++:81103 Date: 2001-08-08T20:19:44-04:00 List-Id: Ed Falis wrote: > 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. Yes, I missed the assembler entry entirely. So much for my "difference" between Ada and C++... You folks *are* useful ;) Now if only I could find the rest of the Ada libraries ported to C++. I got attached to concise syntax very quickly. (Yes, before anyone asks, I want to find Haskell-like brace/semicolon rules in a C++ preprocessor) Cheers, Chris