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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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: 2001-08-22 23:41:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle 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 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 23:43:58 -0700 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3B84A62E.D38F5709@adaworks.com> References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <4a885870.0108112341.7ce02ac0@posting.google.com> <3B834E5D.B0D26AB1@adaworks.com> <9lvsic$bet9s$1@ID-9852.news.dfncis.de> <9m0193$grs$1@bird.wu-wien.ac.at> <3B83F9D6.73CB3E02@west.raytheon.com> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e.fc.cd.b9 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 23 Aug 2001 06:41:37 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12310 comp.lang.c:76327 comp.lang.c++:85075 comp.lang.functional:7646 Date: 2001-08-23T06:41:37+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > I can remember the IM (idiot manager) informing a visiting prospective customer > that we were porting that perfectly working engine controller to C++ from Ada. > When the customer incredulously asked why we'd do such a useless thing, IM told > him essentialy that he, the customer, would refuse to buy it no matter how good > the specs, if it were coded in Ada internally rather than the current hot new > language. There truly is no end to this kind of stupidity. I regularly encounter people who seriously believe they can acheive the same reliability in C++ that they can with Ada. Sadly, even some really competent technical people accept this argument, for reasons they know have nothing to do with technological excellence. Over and over I hear the story, "Well Ada is probably better, but C++ is just as good if we use it carefully," or "I can do just as well as C++ as with Ada, even though I'll admit Ada is a better language." It is quite frustrating. On the positive side, some of those who have made the decision to migrate to C++ made that decision without fully understanding its implications. Once they discover how hideous C++ is, they back off and decide to use Java. The thought of returning to Ada is simply too repugnant to them. Richard Riehle