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-Thread: 103376,5bc4be576204aa20 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr25.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <43783810.6080808@obry.net> <0f4ef.1413$s14.1261@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Buffer overflow Article - CACM X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Message-ID: <5Fpif.25167$Zv5.13092@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.109.140.17 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net 1133127361 ST000 69.109.140.17 (Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:36:01 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:36:01 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: Q[RGW^WETZSMB_DX]BCBNWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO^BVNDQUBLNTC@AWZWDXZXQ[K\FFSKCVM@F_N_DOBWVWG__LG@VVOIPLIGX\\BU_B@\P\PFX\B[APHTWAHDCKJF^NHD[YJAZMCY_CWG[SX\Y]^KC\HSZRWSWKGAY_PC[BQ[BXAS\F\\@DMTLFZFUE@\VL Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:36:01 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6651 Date: 2005-11-27T21:36:01+00:00 List-Id: "Christopher Browne" wrote in message news:m3psop8e45.fsf@mobile.int.cbbrowne.com... > > Where the CACM article has some things *right* is that there are > plenty of systems where it would be way too costly to reimplement them > in a buffer-overflow-immune language. People are not going to redo > everything in PL/1 or Ada just because they have better specified > string types. They don't have time. > -- I am reminded of the well-known comment that "We always have time to do it over but never time to do it right." In the case of Ada, there is no need to "redo everything." The language is rather friendly to other languages. As for PL/I, there are entirely too many other problems with that language to use it for dependable software. Richard Riehle