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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jeffrey Carter Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Heartbleed Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:45:59 -0700 Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net; news.eternal-september.org Message-ID: References: <1ljwj8f.1wqbhvuabsdw1N%csampson@inetworld.net> <51c7d6d4-e3be-44d5-a4ce-f7e875345588@googlegroups.com> <%J32v.70539$kp1.45343@fx14.iad> <87tx9so50m.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:46:01 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bd5e647da89610f9b7b0763dacbc65f9"; logging-data="25669"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7xxXUaA9LuWsaQjeXkK2qnDLyy/AwNVg=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:6e2iKYXfQZ7dIULFacLrm1J5qRU= Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:185820 Date: 2014-04-18T13:45:59-07:00 List-Id: On 04/18/2014 11:34 AM, Simon Clubley wrote: > > I agree with both of you, but the fact remains those same people are > writing the critical/common libraries used in a wide range of software > and hardware products. Precisely. If civil engineering were done like software engineering, we'd have construction workers designing bridges and deciding what materials to use to build them. We don't allow that for our physical infrastructure, and we shouldn't allow it for the infrastructure that supports most of our commerce. Until we get to that point there will be no improvement in the situation, no matter what language you design. > So how about a language which doesn't have all the software engineering > requirements Ada does, but still comes with some type safety, has > a level of functionality comparable to C, uses a syntax which makes > it far less likely for people to make silly syntax related mistakes and > runs on far more platforms than Ada compilers do ? Unless it has all the failings of C, coders will continue to use C. To coders, those failings are desirable qualities. -- Jeff Carter "C++ is vast and dangerous, a sort of Mordor of programming languages." Jason R. Fruit 120