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 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: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-09 09:45:23 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: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:57:28 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9kubta$h4p$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9kpo9r$415@augusta.math.psu.edu> <5drpk9.l0e.ln@10.0.0.2> <9krhd2$6po@augusta.math.psu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997372650 17561 136.170.200.133 (9 Aug 2001 15:57:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Aug 2001 15:57:30 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:11691 comp.lang.c:73202 comp.lang.c++:81266 comp.lang.functional:7440 Date: 2001-08-09T15:57:30+00:00 List-Id: Failure of software is 100% due to mistakes made by the author. :-) This is true no matter what language you are talking about. As was pointed out elsewhere, there is a philosophical difference between Ada and C/C++ - one in which Ada's philosophy is "include safety by default" whereas C/C++'s philosophy is "Add the safety in for yourself if you think you need it." Since in my experience, computer programmers are in most respects similar to human beings and human beings make mistakes on a regular basis, I prefer to have the machine (language) do as much checking for me as possible. This is not dissimilar to having a spell-checker within a word processor. It won't stop you from saying something stupid, but at least when you do say something stupid, it will not have the easily detected spelling and gramatical mistakes that are commonly made. 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/ wrote in message news:ldbsk9.1gl.ln@10.0.0.2... > > Well, I personally am satisfied with the quality of the tools for C++ > (and the language itself). They are not perfect, but generally they are > good enough. Enough that 99% of the failures of the software > I write happen because of mistakes by me (the programmer). Other tools > wouldn't matter. >