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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no 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: 2001-08-01 14:57:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" 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: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 17:21:44 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9k9rta$2vi$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <9k9ilv$jds$1@farviolet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 996700906 3058 136.170.200.133 (1 Aug 2001 21:21:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Aug 2001 21:21:46 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10989 comp.lang.c:71425 comp.lang.c++:79170 comp.lang.functional:7111 Date: 2001-08-01T21:21:46+00:00 List-Id: To combine two responses I've made elsewhere into one: 1) This is the "Any *competent* programmer would/wouldn't...." answer that I do not find satisfying. We are all incompetent on any given hour of any given day and we make simple, boneheaded mistakes that can be automatically caught by a machine and prevented from escaping into the final product. Whats wrong with that? Arguing that this is just going to force the bugs off into some other area is a rather pessimistic view that treats bugs like they were subject to gas laws - they can't be created or destroyed, only relocated. ("In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson :-) This seems to be absurd on the face of it. If that were true, we should devote no effort whatsoever to bug prevention of any kind because it would be wasted. 2) I personally did a study of defects on data collected over a ten year timespan that compared defect rates when using Ada versus defect rates using a number of other languages. The Ada projects had defect rates that were lower by a factor of four. Saying that language of implementation has no impact on the number of defects flies in the face of emperical evidence to the contrary & I would ask that such claimants back that up with something bordering on scientific evidence rather than rectal extraction. I have good evidence that indicates languages *do* reduce errors by a very significant amount. Not just my own study - try these links: http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/ADACASE.HTM http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2000/aug/mccormick.asp http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/337.jsp It may be that any given Ada program/programmer is going to be more bug-ridden than some other program written in C/C++ by a "competent" programmer. However, in the important business of making money for the stockholders, I believe that we should use every technical advantage we can get rather than relying on "competence" (which I doubt exists 100% of the time in any of us). If a safer language like Ada exists and all other considerations are equal, I'd think it was important to choose Ada and reduce errors accordingly. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message news:BUZ97.2587$B37.101940@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com... > > Someone who is too clueless to correctly program in a language like C > should not be writing critical software in any language. Low level data > representation details being taken care of, the programmer will simply > focus his or her lack of discipline and skill to some other area. > > Saying that a better language will prevent errors is like saying that > installing video cameras in a neighborhood stops crime. That is a fallacy; > the crime is simply displaced to where there are no cameras. > > Higher level languages are advantageous because of the greater ease > in which complex problems can be represented using fewer lines of > code that is more easily adapted to changing requirements. They don't > compensate for bad programming. >