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: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-08 15:42:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!skynet.be!louie!not-for-mail Sender: - From: Bart.Vanhauwaert@nowhere.be Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional References: <9kpo9r$415@augusta.math.psu.edu> <5drpk9.l0e.ln@10.0.0.2> <9krhd2$6po@augusta.math.psu.edu> User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.17-21mdksecure (i686)) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:36:53 +0200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.78.202.248 X-Trace: 997310558 reader1.news.skynet.be 62255 194.78.202.248 X-Complaints-To: abuse@skynet.be Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11644 comp.lang.c:73011 comp.lang.c++:81083 comp.lang.functional:7418 Date: 2001-08-08T23:36:53+02:00 List-Id: Dan Cross wrote: > The point that those desktop components could and should be built to > a higher level of quality than they currently are, perhaps using better > tools. I am not yet convinced that desktop components would be dramatically better if they where written in Ada. Some of the major points brought forward in this thread (bounds checking, ...) currently exist in Java. Java software is not generally of a higher quality than equivalent C/C++ software. > If all you want to do is perpetuate the status quo, then by all means > continue doing what you're doing. Well, I personally am satisfied with the quality of the tools for C++ (and the language itself). They are not perfect, but generally they are good enough. Enough that 99% of the failures of the software I write happen because of mistakes by me (the programmer). Other tools wouldn't matter. cu bart -- http://www.irule.be/bvh/