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: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-01 16:00:25 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!203.50.2.79!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!not-for-mail From: Dale Stanbrough 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. Organization: RMIT References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <5ee5b646.0108010949.5abab7fe@posting.google.com> <%CX97.14134$ar1.47393@www.newsranger.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:00:24 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.132.94.47 X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 996706824 144.132.94.47 (Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:00:24 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:00:24 EST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11003 comp.lang.c:71455 comp.lang.c++:79192 comp.lang.functional:7124 Date: 2001-08-01T23:00:24+00:00 List-Id: Kaz Kylheku wrote: > Languages with checks are great, but they don't compensate for bad > programming. Well, I suspect that this is purely conjecture on your part. My equally valid conjecture (actually possibly better, because I've seen lots of students use C and Ada) is that better languages do result in better code. Errors in code (such as array overflow) is removed. The code that is produced generally has fewer of these problems (because they are picked up earlier, and are removed from the program). Perhaps I should ask you this question... Would you be happy if the C language went back to not enforcing/type checking parameters to functions? What they do is displace bad programming. Programmers > are displaced to causing other types of errors, or maybe they are > displaced to other programming languages entirely. Again this is simply conjecture, with I would guess, little evidence. > If programs in some language tend to demonstrate more robustness than > programs in some other language, is it due to the language, or is it > due to the types of people that gravitate toward using these languages? Why are you asking this question, if above you state that such languages -don't- compensate for bad programming? I don't think you can have it both ways... Dale