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: 2001-08-01 17:05:20 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!wnoise
From: wnoise@ugcs.caltech.edu (Aaron Denney)
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: 2 Aug 2001 00:05:05 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Message-ID: <slrn9mh69g.pbv.wnoise@barter.ugcs.caltech.edu>
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <slrn9ma7qp.nac.randhol@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
 <yecofq03kih.fsf@king.cts.com> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com>
 <ppsemtojqkqsqpfvj1th3mae8b4vu1tg89@4ax.com>
 <tmfvrpmb575l80@corp.supernews.com>
 <slrn9mg902.aa.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <yu8zo9jcyah.fsf@mcowan-linux.transmeta.com>
 <9ka1e1$b5h$2@bird.wu-wien.ac.at> <3B688D21.810C5706@eton.powernet.co.uk>
 <9ka33g$b5h$4@bird.wu-wien.ac.at>
Reply-To: wnoise@ugcs.caltech.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: barter.ugcs.caltech.edu
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11010 comp.lang.c:71470
 comp.lang.c++:79213 comp.lang.functional:7133
Date: 2001-08-02T00:05:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Markus Mottl <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
> That's what I meant ("implementation" rather than "compiler"), but I was
> thinking of languages that do not have interpreters (e.g. C), though in
> theory interpreters are possible for any language.

C has a few interpreters for it, actually.  (Well, some are not quite C, or
don't implement everything.)

CINT, EiC, and ICI seem to be the most popular ones.  I've used one
in a job a few years back that was an extension language.  It was nice
because if the interpreted version wasn't fast enough, you could compile the
extension and load it as a dll. (I don't recall the name, and it was hacked by
the company to export our own bindings.  The only non-compliance I had found was
that adjacent string literals were not merged.)

-- 
Aaron Denney
-><-