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=2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH, FREEMAIL_FROM,HELO_NO_DOMAIN,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT,RDNS_NONE,SPOOFED_FREEMAIL_NO_RDNS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,beb0b7471c6440e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-20 10:39:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!skynet.be!freenix!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Gautier Write-only-address" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 'Cyclone', a safer C--reinventing the wheel Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:37:14 +0000 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1006281573 94341 137.194.161.2 (20 Nov 2001 18:39:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:39:33 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Return-Path: X-Originating-IP: [217.162.134.87] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Nov 2001 18:37:14.0643 (UTC) FILETIME=[5FCDC630:01C171F2] Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16737 Date: 2001-11-20T18:37:14+00:00 >From: "chris.danx" >Hmm, I'm getting fed up with posts like this. >The frequency of posts like this has increased alot in recent >months, and I'm sick of it. You are right about the form - "C bashings" - and maybe that Cyclone will help to improve things in areas where everything is already programmed in C, and debug legacy code whose programmers are maybe already dead (there are already pieces of C code programmed 30 yers ago). However the article is interesting in that it tends to state that the only way to program systems is in C, so to program safely, you have to "add security" to C. "The idea is to take good security ideas from higher level languages and implement them at a lower level", says a Cornell researcher. It's their right, since they live from this project. But the journalist should take distance and propose to compare the alternatives 1. improve C with higher language ideas 2. use the higher languages (1. seems to me "un empl�tre sur une jambe de bois" <- french) It's worth a feedback to New Scientist. Surely the vast majority of programmers, who don't use C or its derivates, will find the article fun. ____________________________________________________________ Gautier -- http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/index.htm#Ada NB: Do not answer to sender address, visit the Web site! Ne r�pondez pas � l'exp�diteur, visitez le site ouaibe! _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp