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: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-02 09:21:03 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: "Daniel Fischer" <dan@gueldenland.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional
Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of
 service attack.
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 18:20:07 +0200
Organization: Gueldenland MUD: telnet gl.mud.de 4444
Message-ID: <made-on-a-macintosh-969204-20460@usenet.l1t.lt>
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <Xz%97.2632$B37.106689@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>
 <9ka1jc$mgd@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl>
 <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 996769211 02 8150 KvboS-WSSVAoxj 010802 16:20:11
X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com
X-Sender: 520060923510-0001@t-dialin.net
User-Agent: Pan/0.9.7 (Unix)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11099 comp.lang.c:71673
 comp.lang.c++:79369 comp.lang.functional:7195
Date: 2001-08-02T18:20:07+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

begin followup ("Dan Cross" <cross@augusta.math.psu.edu>)

> Going back to programming, can we guess that as the number of
> programming related defects goes down, the number of design related
> defects rises?

Yes. Proof of concept: Java. :)

> Or is it that we're no longer hiding those design related defects behind
> our programming errors?

Don't think so. The more possible programming related defects you need to
consider, the more you think about your design.


Daniel

-- 
IMO, anyway.
end  message by (Daniel Fischer <dan@gueldenland.de>)
clc FAQ:    http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
08/02	Our Lady of Los Angeles in Costa Rica