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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-21 10:10:32 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!attcg2!attcg1!ip.att.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language
Date: 21 Feb 2003 12:10:23 -0600
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Message-ID: <O06nZK8USq5A@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <mHZ0a.42983$jM5.108891@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
 <nRg1a.190899$HG.32437469@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
 <3E51908E.9CCA3412@adaworks.com>
 <8Gh4a.7455$_c6.743959@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
 <3E51ABCE.5491B9A2@adaworks.com> <b2spe6$p23$1@helle.btinternet.com>
 <3E5273DE.2050206@cox.net> <3E531E6F.BDFB2599@adaworks.com>
 <3E546C45.4010406@cox.net> <3E54F926.441D5BB5@adaworks.com>
 <1045763933.848350@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <42EA55F4BE83950E.F1DA277C2FDC157B.C804C1C52FE95D65@lp.airnews.net>
 <1045769690.1Organization: LJK Software
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1045850937 15658 192.135.80.34 (21 Feb 2003
 18:08:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:08:57 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:34356
Date: 2003-02-21T12:10:23-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1045845919.135559@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
>> So your point is that it is better to use C/C++ which doesn't have these
>> test in the first place?
> 
> Oh no, not at all. It's much better for the checks to be there.
> But you have to be aware of their limitations, and know when
> you want to disable them.
> 
>> How come there are so many security holes in software then?
> 
> My point was that checks should be disabled when it is
> important for programs to continue operation.

For the Patriot case, I think "continue operations" is the wrong
action in the presence of an error, since the whole system deploys
explosives "somewhere".