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: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-09 13:26:37 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.43.194.69!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!157.161.139.35.MISMATCH!408328!news.imp.ch!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 16:16:32 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9kur33$n4r$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9kpo9r$415@augusta.math.psu.edu> <5drpk9.l0e.ln@10.0.0.2> <9krhd2$6po@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9kubta$h4p$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9kup40$6pomr$1@ID-9852.news.dfncis.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997388195 23707 136.170.200.133 (9 Aug 2001 20:16:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Aug 2001 20:16:35 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:11704 comp.lang.c:73247 comp.lang.c++:81333 comp.lang.functional:7450 Date: 2001-08-09T20:16:35+00:00 List-Id: Well, I suppose we could play The Blame Game, but I was thinking about mistakes made by people vs mistakes made by machines. Software doesn't kill people - Programmers do. (Or customer specifiers or compiler writers or government auditors, or... You get the idea.) The notion I was thinking of was the one expressed a couple of posts back that the software libraries or tools make 1% of the mistakes and the other 99% are due to the programmer. I'd contend that 0% of the mistakes are made by the libraries or tools - the mistakes are creditable to some human being somewhere who didn't account for all the possibilities that might occur. That's why I favor machine-checking for errors. The more machine checking that can be done, the less liklihood that something gets missed. The more a computer language is capable of (and does) checking for errors, the less liklihood that a human error is going to kill someone. 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/ "Joachim Durchholz" wrote in message news:9kup40$6pomr$1@ID-9852.news.dfncis.de... > Marin David Condic wrote: > > Failure of software is 100% due to mistakes made by the author. :-) > > Wrong. A sizable fraction is due to misunderstandings between author and > customer (or whoever writes the specifications), and it's not always the > author who's responsible for them. >