Re: Ada BIND was: Improving Ada's image - Was: 7E7 Flight Controls Electronics

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

If that's the case, then why not work on simply adding some sanity 
checking to BIND? I'm not up on this particular program, but I wanted to 
make the point that rewriting an existing app in Ada is not usually a 
productive use of time unless there are structural flaws or added 
features. If the basic protocol is sound and the basic BIND program is 
sound and all it needs are some sanity checks, then it would seem like a 
smaller job to add the sanity checks than to rewrite the whole thing.

While I'm a believer in Ada, I don't think that coding an app up in Ada 
somehow makes it *better* just by that very fact. Nobody buys programs 
just because it says "Ada Inside" - so its important to add something 
more. Given limited resources, it would seem more productive to come up 
with something new and innovative rather than take existing apps and 
recode them in Ada just to have an Ada version.

MDC


Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> No this is a case where implementing the protocols securely is what is 
> needed.  BIND doesn't do as much sanity checking as it should, and that 
> provides openings for malicious hackers.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================