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: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public 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: 2001-08-09 23:37:27 PST Message-ID: <3B738145.CC94E732@eton.powernet.co.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:37:57 +0100 From: Richard Heathfield Organization: Eton Computer Systems Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional 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$6po@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9kubta$h4p$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.60.5.104 X-Trace: news.power.net.uk 997425443 195.60.5.104 (10 Aug 2001 07:37:23 +0100) Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!194.42.224.136!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!easynet-monga!easynet.net!news-feed.power.net.uk!news.power.net.uk Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11741 comp.lang.c:73342 comp.lang.c++:81477 comp.lang.functional:7457 Date: 2001-08-10T07:37:57+01:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > > Failure of software is 100% due to mistakes made by the author. :-) This is > true no matter what language you are talking about. As was pointed out > elsewhere, there is a philosophical difference between Ada and C/C++ - one > in which Ada's philosophy is "include safety by default" whereas C/C++'s > philosophy is "Add the safety in for yourself if you think you need it." > Since in my experience, computer programmers are in most respects similar to > human beings and human beings make mistakes on a regular basis, I prefer to > have the machine (language) do as much checking for me as possible. This is > not dissimilar to having a spell-checker within a word processor. It won't > stop you from saying something stupid, but at least when you do say > something stupid, it will not have the easily detected spelling and > gramatical mistakes that are commonly made. The trouble with programs like, four eggs ample, spell checkers, is there tendency two give yew a level of confidence inn yore output witch mite knot bee just if fried. People who trust computers scare me. (Mind you, people who trust people scare me too.) -- Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999. C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton