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: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-01 16:18:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!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: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <9ka1e1$b5h$2@bird.wu-wien.ac.at> <3B688D21.810C5706@eton.powernet.co.uk> 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: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:18:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.68.85.82 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.bc.home.com 996707925 24.68.85.82 (Wed, 01 Aug 2001 16:18:45 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 16:18:45 PDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11006 comp.lang.c:71462 comp.lang.c++:79202 comp.lang.functional:7129 Date: 2001-08-01T23:18:45+00:00 List-Id: In article <3B688D21.810C5706@eton.powernet.co.uk>, Richard Heathfield wrote: >Markus Mottl wrote: >> > >> >> Any language that attempts to be called serious bootstraps >> itself. Needless to say that the first compiler of a new language wasn't >> written in the language itself, > >Just a small nit - there's nothing to stop you writing the first >compiler of a new language using an interpreter for that language. I >agree that you can't write the first *implementation* of a language in >itself, though. However, you can write that implementation in another language that is arbitrarily close to that language. For example, an implementation of C can be written in a variant of the C language which doesn't support the \v escape sequence in character and string literals. That implementation's source code can then be corrected to use those literals where necessary, so that for instance when it parses the \v sequence, the value that is substituted is expressed as '\v'. In this manner, you can start with some little language and then hack more and more features into it, feeding them back into its own source code. >Or at least, if you can, you are probably related to >Ken Thompson, Donald Knuth, Alan Turing, and perhaps Douglas Hofstadter >too. Or more likely, you *are* Thompson, Knuth, or Hofstadter. :)