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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101deb,3488d9e5d292649f X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-22 05:13:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news-west.rr.com!cyclone.nyroc.rr.com!cyclone-out.nyroc.rr.com!twister.nyroc.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3E574AF3.73E9C38A@yahoo.com> From: Peter Flass X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language References: <3E51908E.9CCA3412@adaworks.com> <8Gh4a.7455$_c6.743959@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3E51ABCE.5491B9A2@adaworks.com> <3E5273DE.2050206@cox.net> <3E531E6F.BDFB2599@adaworks.com> <3E546C45.4010406@cox.net> <3E54F926.441D5BB5@adaworks.com> <1045763933.848350@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3e568925$6$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:57:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.194.50.82 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.nyroc.rr.com 1045918668 24.194.50.82 (Sat, 22 Feb 2003 07:57:48 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 07:57:48 EST Organization: Road Runner Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4419 comp.lang.ada:34417 Date: 2003-02-22T12:57:48+00:00 List-Id: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote: > > True. But a huge proportion of the exploits in Internet software rely > on buffer underruns, which wouldn't exist in a language like Ada that > has an equivalent to SUBSCRIPTRANGE. And, yes, the checking can be > turned off in Ada, but I would hope that such an abomination would > never get through code review. Once again, it all depends. If I write (PL/I) code like: DO i=LBOUND(array,1) TO HBOUND(array,1); ... I'm *guaranteed* that I'll never have a subscript problem, no matter what, and range checking is redundant. If I take some random value read from a file and try to use it as a subscript, a range check might be appropriate, although I'd prefer to do the check myself to better handle the resulting error. Most of the internet problems are caused by a conbination of C, which leaves itself wide open to overflow/underflow, and poor programming, which can be found in any language.