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: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-02 01:50:02 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!195.64.68.27!newsgate.cistron.nl!news.worldonline.nl!newsclients!news.worldonline.nl!not-for-mail
From: info@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos)
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
 service attack.
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 08:25:24 GMT
Organization: Go wash your mouth.
Message-ID: <3b690549.1112022840@news.worldonline.nl>
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <slrn9ma7qp.nac.randhol@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
 <yecofq03kih.fsf@king.cts.com> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com>
 <ppsemtojqkqsqpfvj1th3mae8b4vu1tg89@4ax.com>
 <tmfvrpmb575l80@corp.supernews.com>
 <5ee5b646.0108010949.5abab7fe@posting.google.com>
 <%CX97.14134$ar1.47393@www.newsranger.com>
 <L5Y97.14163$ar1.47661@www.newsranger.com>
 <tmgrs9anc69q95@corp.supernews.com>
 <dale-8EE262.08123502082001@mec2.bigpond.net.au>
 <Xz%97.2632$B37.106689@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>
 <dale-FCF3F9.09002402082001@mec2.bigpond.net.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vp177-146.worldonline.nl
X-Trace: nereid.worldonline.nl 996742154 29947 195.241.177.146 (2 Aug 2001
 08:49:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@worldonline.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Aug 2001 08:49:14 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11052 comp.lang.c:71574
 comp.lang.c++:79288 comp.lang.functional:7162
Date: 2001-08-02T08:49:14+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dale Stanbrough <dale@cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:

>    Would you be happy if the C language went back to not 
>    enforcing/type checking parameters to functions?

No. Because checking parameter passing can be done, and takes time only,
at compile-time. Checking array bounds has an impact on the performance
of the program itself.
Oh, btw, there _are_ bounds-checking compilers for C. They get used
where the extra safety is deemed important enough to justify the loss of
speed.

Richard