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: 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 23:17:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.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,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. References: <$Id63yuv4BjB@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3b6903f5.1111682555@news.worldonline.nl> <9kci3p$ri$1@elf.eng.bsdi.com> <9kdeuv$dfh@augusta.math.psu.edu> 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: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 06:17:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.68.85.82 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.bc.home.com 996819474 24.68.85.82 (Thu, 02 Aug 2001 23:17:54 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 23:17:54 PDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11167 comp.lang.c:71823 comp.lang.c++:79558 comp.lang.functional:7238 Date: 2001-08-03T06:17:54+00:00 List-Id: In article <9kdeuv$dfh@augusta.math.psu.edu>, Dan Cross wrote: >In article <9kci3p$ri$1@elf.eng.bsdi.com>, Chris Torek wrote: >>Others may use the terminology differently (e.g., interchangeably), >>but I like this distinction -- it is like the one between tactics >>and strategy. > >IMHO, the use of the term ``bug'' to describe an error in a piece of >software is a cop-out on the part of software engineers and >programmers. I sometimes like to use plain old ``mistake''. Even the word defect still has a bit of a blame-shifting flavor, defects being things that just ``creep in'' from the environment. A factory can manufacture gadgets, such that 1.48 out of every 1000 will have a defect, on average. Nobody's fault, just a statistic! A defect rate that is accepted as an artifact of the process. >The term ``bug'' implies that it's beyond the control of >the programmer, when in reality, software has no bugs which aren't >placed there by the person who writes it (sometimes directly, sometimes >indirectly). > >Was it Hoare who said something along the lines of, ``it's a lot easier >for a programmer to say, `the software still has a few bugs' than to >say, `the software is full of defects I put there.' '' See? It seems necessary to add the qualifying words ``I put there'', when you use ``defect''. As opposed to some defect that you didn't put there, but which occured for some magic statistical reasons. ;) But if you say ``the software is full of mistakes'', no further qualification is needed. It's obvious who wrote it, and therefore who made the mistakes.