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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit 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 07:48:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ From: Ted Dennison References: <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3b6a453c.1193942215@news.worldonline.nl> <9keejl$fhj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3c30da40.0108060848.796d9bd9@posting.google.com> <3B6F3216.F410BBFF@home.com> <3B6F3FAE.B9B9FFCF@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B6F5BF6.1E22543B@home.com> <3B706538.5AB33833@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B70BDA5.575D8E6A@home.com> <3B71C74E.505A8753@globetrotter.qc.ca> Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:48:07 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:48:07 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11684 comp.lang.c:73177 comp.lang.c++:81220 Date: 2001-08-09T14:48:07+00:00 List-Id: In article <3B71C74E.505A8753@globetrotter.qc.ca>, Chris Wolfe says... >So why not compare _comparable_ things: like a C++ compiler and >library designed with safety in mind against Ada. Rather than a Because this thread is about OS's and the C++ dialects which they have been implemented in, vs. (standard) Ada. Clearly your wonderful non-standard dialect of C++ was not used either for the system software in question. Perhaps it would have been an equally good idea to use it, but that's not what the thread is about. >So we do the Ada thing: throw away the flexibility of the >language to force everyone to play safe. In case you missed it, >most C++ compiler also provide support for inline assembler: A) >if I need it, I can get it. B) if I don't need it, I can stick >with the safer stuff. Ada has a very different philosophy. That's a odd complaint. Ada's just as flexible as C. You just have to announce to the compiler (and not so incidently, the human source code reader) when you are doing something unsafe, but its not prevented. Also *every* Ada compiler (as opposed to "most" C++ compilers) has support for inline assembler. Its actually in the standard. The Ada philosopy is indeed quite different from C's but its not quite what you seem to think it is. >> 2. You now have to prove that your Class Posix is fault free >> before you put it on an aircraft or in a medical instrument. > >Duh, and this was somehow skipped when producing the Ada >libraries? I somehow fail to believe that Ada circumvents bugs in >the functions provided by my operating system. He probably shouldn't have brought this up, as it confuses just about everyone who isn't familiar with safety-critical software. Debugging software and proving it correct are two *very* different things. There's a whole lot of theory behind safety critical software and software correctness proofs that you really have to study for a while to understand. Bringing it into a discussion with folks who are unfamiliar with it is just going to cause a lot of confusion. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com