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 15:30:03 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 Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:15:28 -0400 Organization: Queen's University, Kingston Message-ID: <3B7D9780.B4D6B541@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> <3B7C79FA.89E62321@globetrotter.qc.ca> 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:12081 comp.lang.c++:83564 Date: 2001-08-17T18:15:28-04:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: [snip] > But I should point out that there is a very real difference between the language > defined types (numbers, records, arrays, etc), and stuff in libraries in an > annex somewhere. The stl is *built on* C++, rather than being an integral part > of it. Unless your compiler writers were *very* clever, that's going to cause > some overhead. If it's in the standard, it's an integral part. Either the STL is part of the C++ language, or the Predefined Language Environment is not part of Ada. Excluding both would be pretty stupid, so I shall continue ignoring that "definition". I doesn't takes a genius to produce special cases where common STL calls are treated as language elements. Once the compiler writer decides to build it in, it's mostly identifying which calls the compiler can't inline automatically, plus grunt-work. I am assuming that Ada compilers support at least parts of the Predefined Language Environment in this form (notice: from an annex). > Either way, you've still got that temptingly terse unsafe > language-defined array support enshrined in the standard, begging to be > (ab)used. I don't believe anyone claimed safe programming in C++ was for the forgetful or the clueless. There are languages better suited for those folks, and Ada does not really qualify either. Anyway, unless someone has something interesting to contribute I'm going to go back to ignoring this thread. Hopefully until it dies... Chris