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-Thread: 103376,99f400c19b6942c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.190.104 with SMTP id gp8mr20467609pbc.4.1340812088767;
        Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni26236pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: mjsilva@scriptoriumdesigns.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Watch out Ada, here comes the new and "safe" C  language
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <f5ba53ef-a1fa-4f3d-a9b8-d5f451e732ef@googlegroups.com>
References: <jsc94n$v1$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <slsju7lfgekf2hqc3sq29lv12at6vgfe1p@invalid.netcom.com>
 <wcczk7pwyy2.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.35.64.226
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1340812086 23626 127.0.0.1 (27 Jun 2012 15:48:06
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:48:06 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <wcczk7pwyy2.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=12.35.64.226;
 posting-account=qZVz2QoAAAAN9WxYp-9jYb7jORc4Zqwt
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-06-27T08:48:05-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:22:29 PM UTC-7, Robert A Duff wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber <w...com> writes:
> 
> > 	"Aiming" is the key word... According to the blog, the unsafe string
> > manipulation functions are still part of the standard -- making it a
> > matter of programmer discipline to avoid using them in favor of the
> > newer "safer" routines.
> 
> Yeah, but it's worse than that.  Compiler warnings could remind people
> to use the "safer" versions, but the "safer" routines aren't really
> safe, because the programmer is responsible for keeping track of the
> array length, and passing it in calls.
 
Well sure, because all the evidence shows that humans are much better at such housekeeping than computers are.  I thought everybody knew that.