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: 2001-08-08 22:54:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc2.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B7225A1.DC95C8A6@home.com> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; 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: <9kpo9r$415@augusta.math.psu.edu> <5drpk9.l0e.ln@10.0.0.2> <9krhd2$6po@augusta.math.psu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 05:54:34 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.193.224 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc2.on.home.com 997336474 24.141.193.224 (Wed, 08 Aug 2001 22:54:34 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 22:54:34 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11666 comp.lang.c:73089 comp.lang.c++:81154 Date: 2001-08-09T05:54:34+00:00 List-Id: Bart.Vanhauwaert@nowhere.be wrote: > Dan Cross wrote: > > The point that those desktop components could and should be built to > > a higher level of quality than they currently are, perhaps using better > > tools. > > I am not yet convinced that desktop components would be dramatically > better if they where written in Ada. Some of the major points brought > forward in this thread (bounds checking, ...) currently exist in > Java. Java software is not generally of a higher quality than > equivalent C/C++ software. Like BASIC (of any dialect), Java suffers from having a lot of stuff checked at runtime. That is not where you want to find the errors. You want the developers to find the problems (compile time when possible), rather than once it is in the users hands. > > If all you want to do is perpetuate the status quo, then by all means > > continue doing what you're doing. > > Well, I personally am satisfied with the quality of the tools for C++ > (and the language itself). They are not perfect, but generally they are > good enough. Enough that 99% of the failures of the software > I write happen because of mistakes by me (the programmer). Other tools > wouldn't matter. > > cu bart Here is that Microsoft argument "good enough" again. Software can be better, but people in general, just don't seem to care *sigh*. Thankfully, nobody accepts this argument for medical instruments and flight gear. Hey, maybe I'll get lucky and some C++ program will drop a zero from my mortgage! -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://members.home.net/ve3wwg