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: 2001-08-16 19:10:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!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: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:57:14 -0400 Organization: Queen's University, Kingston Message-ID: <3B7C79FA.89E62321@globetrotter.qc.ca> References: <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9kbvsr$a02@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3B69DB35.4412459E@home.com> <9kp9n7$ivm$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B73337F.862F8D93@home.com> <9lb7hu$72h$1@norfair.nerim.net> <3B7C6977.3648F061@home.com> 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:12027 comp.lang.c++:83301 Date: 2001-08-16T21:57:14-04:00 List-Id: [c.l.c trimmed, as the STL's got boo-all to do with them] "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: > > Bertrand Augereau wrote: [snip] > > But STL *IS PART OF* C++ language, no? > > It is *standard*. > > It _uses_ the C++ language, but does not define it or it's semantics. > It is even a standard _yes_, and it might even be that it must be > included with the C++ compiler, but it is _not_ the C++ language. > The C++ language existed long before STL came along, and even though > it enhances it's use etc. etc. etc., I would just be repeating myself > again if I said that the STL is not the _language_ or an extension > of it. It is a class _library_, which uses the C++ language, which > includes using the C++ template [language] _facilities_. But a language > it is not. > > But if you insist on calling sheep as goats, and goats as sheep, > then I give up. You win. On the basis of that tirade Natural, Positive, String and virtually every other useful object provided by Ada is not the Ada language. If it's required by the standard, it's part of the language. I do not believe (and I may well get corrected on this) that the STL templates are anywhere prevented from being implemented as compiler internals (i.e. not as a library). Quite a few optimizing C and C++ compilers will generate common library calls directly within the program (via special handling, rather than by inlining the library code). So where do you want to draw this magical line between language definition and core libraries? If you keep insisting those goats are sheep you are going to lose by global plonking... Chris