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: 2001-08-17 06:46:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!east1.newsfeed.sprint-canada.net!news.storm.ca!nnrp1.tor.metronet.ca!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B7D2033.1C780DF5@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++ Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. References: <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9kbvsr$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> <3B7C79FA.89E62321@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B7C9288.6CD8C288@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:46:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.47.195 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:46:28 MDT Organization: MetroNet Communications Group Inc. Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12042 comp.lang.c++:83411 Date: 2001-08-17T13:46:28+00:00 List-Id: Kaz Kylheku wrote: > In article <3B7C9288.6CD8C288@home.com>, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > >Kaz Kylheku wrote: > >> In article <3B7C79FA.89E62321@globetrotter.qc.ca>, Chris Wolfe wrote: > >> >> 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. > >> > >> In fact, when you write your own procedures or functions, you are > >> extending the language to create a new dialect specific to your program. > > > >Rubbish. You are _using_ the language to create a translation (compiled > >output). > > The language needn't be compiled. What I'm doing is expressing that > a computation is to take place. > > >When you can show the compiler's yacc grammer that specifically > >addresses specific aspects of the STL (ie. specific to certain > >class names), then you might have something. > > The C++ language is no defined by a yacc grammar. I'd be _real_ surprised if gcc does not use yacc to implement the C++ compiler. But even so, then let's move on.. > >Until then, you are calling sheep goats. > > I'm not going to demand that you accept the definitions of the terms that > I'm using. But those definitions are not confused. It is your definition > that is confused: you are confusing ``grammar'' and ``language''. Only in > the narrowest mathematical sense is a language the regular set generated > by a grammar. > > In the terminology that I'm using, a programming language is a broader > container which contains components like ``grammar'' and ``library''. > > To call the language a grammar is to mistake the part for the whole. I agree with you on this, but you are putting words in my mouth. The grammer does indeed help to define the language (its form and its rules), but obviously is not the language itself. But what about this: What language does the STL use? Hmmm.. lemme guess, it's probably C++ and perhaps a sprinkling of assembler where required for ultimate speed. After all, the STL is a _translated_ library, that is shipped with "include" files. Again, the "include" files are written in C++. But wait a minute? You cannot define something in terms of itself. So this leads to one of two conclusions: The language that the STL is written in is: - a subset of C++ - or the STL is not part of the C++ language proper. As such, it only enhances the usefulness of the C++ language, as a _library_ I have yet to hear of anyone talk about "subset C++". So while you have some points, I still cannot agree with you on this point. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://members.home.net/ve3wwg