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: 103376,25d5234e7b6ca361 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-27 14:06:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sdd.hp.com!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.ucsd.edu!not-for-mail From: Dr Chaos Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada versus language-X and "getting real work done" (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP Followup-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:06:20 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Univ of Calif San Diego Message-ID: References: <3E4E8F8C.9C096985@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0302250710.5549baaf@posting.google.com> <3E5C7033.BD5DC462@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0302260618.7506cba7@posting.google.com> <3E5CF5C6.84822F57@adaworks.com> <1046299823.547481@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1quq5v0sb922r76rbpmcs2pe19dr4i5a2r@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu X-Trace: news1.ucsd.edu 1046383580 25464 132.239.222.85 (27 Feb 2003 22:06:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news1.ucsd.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:06:20 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:59427 comp.object:58552 comp.lang.ada:34689 Date: 2003-02-27T22:06:20+00:00 List-Id: brougham3@yahoo.com wrote: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >>Programming language choice is so far from a factor in >>interoperability and communications that your comments >>are laughable. > > Why are stack buffer overflow problems such an issue in C when programs > receive communications that differ from what the programmer expected? Yes, > I'm aware this is a programmer deficiency. Subscribe to something like > Bugtraq for any length of time, and you'll see the same programmer problems > over and over and over again. > > Programming language choice is a factor. If you have a skilled programmer, > language doesn't matter. This is an assertion that is frequently made, but rather questionable without empirical evidence one way or another. With persistence and skill, programmers can overcome many deficiencies, but deficiencies they still are. > The problem is that it's far harder to find a > truly skilled C++ master than it is a C one. Why is that? Perhaps there is something intrinsic about the language design there because it's not a lack of exposure. > Both are many times harder to > find than a skilled Java guru. Not sure about Ada. Why is guru-ness so correlated with language now? My personal opinion is that good languages ought to, and do, bring up the average quality of the "30% to 98%" skill levels of programming. My personal opinion is that C++ induces too much "risk" both in programs, ---where working programs and buggy programs are almost interlocking dense sets {in the mathematical sense}---and among programmers. That is there is some non-zero chance that you might end up with a programmer, perhaps good at lots of other things, who is just plain unable to be reliably successful with C++. I think that would be much less likely with other programming languages.