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: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922
X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-12 20:15:19 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed!enews.sgi.com!sdd.hp.com!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.ucsd.edu!not-for-mail
From: Dr Chaos <mbkennelSPAMBEGONE@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc
Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate,
 and why it collapsed and died)
Followup-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 03:15:18 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Univ of Calif San Diego
Message-ID: <slrnbc0oq6.1o8.mbkennelSPAMBEGONE@lyapunov.ucsd.edu>
References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com>
 <C73FB1279386F1CD.BF0175B06B325A3F.212017A5819C3CBB@lp.airnews.net>
 <9fa75d42.0305010621.55e99deb@posting.google.com>
 <254c16a.0305011035.13133e8d@posting.google.com>
 <9fa75d42.0305011727.5eae0222@posting.google.com>
 <17cd177c.0305072114.24f04783@posting.google.com>
 <9fa75d42.0305090612.261d5a5c@posting.google.com>
 <b9gko2$pub@library1.airnews.net>
 <9fa75d42.0305091549.48b9c5d9@posting.google.com>
 <b9hpdl$u9q@library1.airnews.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Trace: news1.ucsd.edu 1052795718 16248 132.239.222.85 (13 May 2003 03:15:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news1.ucsd.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 03:15:18 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63620 comp.object:63272
 comp.lang.ada:37261 misc.misc:14107
Date: 2003-05-13T03:15:18+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 9 May 2003 21:44:29 -0500, John R. Strohm <strohm@airmail.net> wrote:
> It only takes one such error in commercial code to create a buffer overrun
> vulnerability.  Haven't we seen enough of those?  (Was it Edsger Dijkstra
> who compared testing with subscript checking enabled and running production
> with it disabled to sailing in the harbor with a life jacket and then taking
> the jacket off when you ventured out onto the open ocean?  Maybe it was Tony
> Hoare.  I've sailed on the Pacific, in 10-foot seas as I recall; I have a
> LOT of respect for open ocean.)

But in practical reality bounds checking is usually not a life vest on
the open ocean.  It's an automatic box that sqwacks, "Danger Will
Robinson, Drowning Alert!!!" when the hull is 3/4ths submerged.


Not that I have a problem with it---I hate programming without it