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: 2001-08-06 07:40:01 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!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: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 13:51:55 GMT
Organization: Go wash your mouth.
Message-ID: <3b6e9c33.1478392360@news.worldonline.nl>
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <9k9if8$rn3$1@elf.eng.bsdi.com> <GHEt6A.BzD@approve.se>
 <3B687EDF.9359F3FC@mediaone.net> <GHFDJp.G7q@approve.se>
 <slrn9mi1q3.7kb.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <PNha7.3185$e%4.96222@news3.oke.nextra.no>
 <5267be60.0108021911.7d8fe4@posting.google.com>
 <cOHa7.3620$e%4.107328@news3.oke.nextra.no>
 <3B6B637F.E3FA243E@worldnet.att.net>
 <xpTa7.3738$e%4.109789@news3.oke.nextra.no>
 <oUlfbxsKs1+d@eisner.encompasserve.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vp225-251.worldonline.nl
X-Trace: nereid.worldonline.nl 997108516 25004 195.241.225.251 (6 Aug 2001
 14:35:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@worldonline.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Aug 2001 14:35:16 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11365 comp.lang.c:72451
 comp.lang.c++:80309 comp.lang.functional:7337
Date: 2001-08-06T14:35:16+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:

> If you aspire to compare the speed of two languages, you must do so
> for equivalent programs.  That means, at the gross level:
> 
> 	Compare a default Ada program to a C program that has
> 		hand-coded checks everywhere Ada inserts checks.

Erm, no. The standard C way is not to check every bound, every time.
Correct procedure is to design your program such that you _prevent_
errors rather than detecting them as they occur; for example, input is
checked _once_, and then, if it passes the tests, assumed correct. You
don't go checking it every time you use it.
If you wish to claim this is not equivalent, very well; but you can't go
around claiming that C is bad simply because it doesn't do things the
Ada way.

Richard