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: 103376,8623fab5750cd6aa X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <40CAF0E1.4000904@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada BIND was: Improving Ada's image - Was: 7E7 Flight Controls Electronics References: <40b9c99e$0$268$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk> <40ba315a$0$254$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk> <04udnR-eHNChzSbdRVn-vw@gbronline.com> <7J0xc.7371$8k4.269106@news20.bellglobal.com> <1086630278.542788@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <8xlxc.27603$sS2.845496@news20.bellglobal.com> <1086715817.122983@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1086733411.736049@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3Auxc.11998$XY6.1296622@read2.cgocable.net> <40C85035.4020706@noplace.com> <40CA0032.3010103@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:03:22 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.24.213 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1087041802 209.165.24.213 (Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:03:22 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:03:22 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1423 Date: 2004-06-12T12:03:22+00:00 List-Id: 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 ======================================================================