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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.99.114.3 with SMTP id n3mr35492543pgc.140.1481184527001; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:08:47 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.37.247 with SMTP id q110mr4877391ota.5.1481184526880; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:08:46 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!n6no4196314qtd.0!news-out.google.com!j8ni13365qtc.0!nntp.google.com!n6no4196313qtd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 00:08:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=165.225.80.114; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.225.80.114 References: <1905815374.502825168.454102.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Introductory Presentations, especially aimed at C++ programmers! From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 08:08:46 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:32672 Date: 2016-12-08T00:08:46-08:00 List-Id: > > Of course, Ada detected the error and crashed, but that's only > > an iota better than what would have happened in C (the uninstaller didn= 't do > > its job either way). >=20 > Well, no, that's not the same thing. You didn't overflow a buffer; you tr= ied to=20 > overflow a buffer, but Ada wouldn't let you. But it is not what you have been referring to earlier. You have proposed to= browse the log of changes of any long-lived internet-oriented open-source = project in C++ and see how many fixes there were for buffer overflow proble= ms. Randy has correctly shown that in Ada it would not be any better - the = log history would contain the same number of fixes for what is the same pro= gramming error. The run-time consequences of such errors might be different, but that was n= ot your argument, either. Instead, you have written: "it is impossible for humans to write code in them without making such erro= rs" The problem is - you did not provide any evidence to claim that those same = humans would not make such errors in Ada. SPARK is a game-changer in this area - but there are too few long-lived int= ernet-oriented open-source projects in SPARK to make a realistic comparison= either. That is, if for whatever reason it is unrealistic to write such pr= ojects in SPARK, then SPARK is not a solution, either. > To my mind, that's exponentially=20 > better than what you get in C. Nobody was able to take control of your co= mputer=20 > because your program crashed. And *this* is a real argument. Ada is safer not because it would prevent pr= ogrammers from making errors, but because it would help them *contain the d= amage* resulting from those errors. Use the right arguments, then you will = be (more) convincing. --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com