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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-18 15:27:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.bc.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: kaz@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. References: <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9kbvsr$a02@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3B69DB35.4412459E@home.com> <9kp9n7$ivm$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B73337F.862F8D93@home.com> <9lb7hu$72h$1@norfair.nerim.net> <3B7C6977.3648F061@home.com> <3B7C79FA.89E62321@globetrotter.qc.ca> <3B7C9288.6CD8C288@home.com> <3B7D2033.1C780DF5@home.com> <3B7DFA37.70534817@home.com> Organization: Psycho-Neurotic Institute for the Very, Very Nervous Reply-To: kaz@ashi.footprints.net User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (Linux) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:27:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.68.85.82 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.bc.home.com 998173646 24.68.85.82 (Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:27:26 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:27:26 PDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12096 comp.lang.c++:83797 Date: 2001-08-18T22:27:26+00:00 List-Id: In article <3B7DFA37.70534817@home.com>, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: >Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> >The language that the STL is written in is: >> >> The language that the library it's written in is English. > >Oh... so now someone is using a "English-to-object code translater" >to produce your STL libraries now? You mean your STL is not written >in any computer language? Don't be rediculous. It's not necessarily written in C++, that is the point. It could be written, for instance, in the binary language of the compiler's symbol table and syntax tree data structures. When you write #include , the compiler could load a binary image containing cooked symbol tables. Or it could have such structures already within its bowels, and simply make them available to the program. Standard headers do not have to be source files, and they do not have to be files. You have made several incorrect references to ``header files''. If you take away the template library, you are left with a subset of the standard C++ language. That subset is still a language. The template library can be bootstrapped using only that remaining subset. So what? That remaining subset is useful for programming without the library. So what? Then you are saying that whenever some feature of a language can be implemented in terms of other features, that feature is not part of the language. Is this an accurate account of the proposition that you are making? If it isn't, how would you reformulate the proposition? That proposition, as stated, fails on languages in which one cannot identify any single possible core sublanguage that can bootstrap everything else. In such languages it so happens that language feature A could be implemented in terms of language feature B, but B could also be implemented in terms of A. So which one is intrinsic, and which one is the boostrapped addition? Also, according to the proposition, the while loop must not be part of the C++ language, because it can be defined as: #define while (X) for (;(X);) Are you comfortable with this conclusion? It's easier to simply say that all of the elements that are required in order to give an interpretation of programs written in a language, are part of that language, even if some of them are redundant.