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=2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, 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: 2001-08-06 00:14:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!212.74.64.35!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!xo.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Dave Adlam" 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: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:11:05 +0100 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Reply-To: "Dave Adlam" References: <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <9k9ilv$jds$1@farviolet.com> <9k9rta$2vi$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <20dmmtchgh62pgomgu8uj2f6vskag5po4v@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xo.supernews.co.uk Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11336 comp.lang.c:72371 comp.lang.c++:80221 comp.lang.functional:7328 Date: 2001-08-06T08:11:05+01:00 List-Id: Tom Plunket wrote in message <20dmmtchgh62pgomgu8uj2f6vskag5po4v@4ax.com>... >Marin David Condic wrote: > >> To combine two responses I've made elsewhere into one: >> >> 1) This is the "Any *competent* programmer would/wouldn't...." answer that I >> do not find satisfying. We are all incompetent on any given hour of any >> given day and we make simple, boneheaded mistakes that can be automatically >> caught by a machine and prevented from escaping into the final product. > >I don't think that was Kaz's point, although I could be wrong. I >read it the same way at first, but then thought that maybe he >meant that "if someone is bad enough to not be able to program in >C/C++ safely (assuming they know the language at all), then they >probably shouldn't be doing mission-critical/life-critical >software in the first place!" > >To this I agree; bad programmers can find work anywhere, they >don't need to be writing software that could kill me. ;) > > >-tom! > >-- >Tom Plunket tomas@fancy.org >PlayStation2/3D Studio geek > "Our music is simple, it's totally fake. It's done by > machines 'cause they don't make mistakes." -KMFDM I have made an effort to learn C++, not to the level of being an expert, but over several months, so not just a small effort. I am not a "guru" at C++, but knowing Ada and then learning C++, I would not choose to use C++ over Ada for a safety related system where people could get injured or worse. Yes, you can use design and coding techniques and/or tools to remove your exposure to certain risks in C++, but the Ada language has many of these features already built in so you can concentrate your effort where it should be - on making the software safer (or if it is perfectly safe already, then on further assurance activities to prove that it is safe). Part of making a software based system is choosing the best tools for the job. This is something that is generally ignored these days in favour of choosing the best tools for your CV! Part of being a good programmer is choosing the right tools for the job, or even the right tools for the right part of the job - mixed language programming is possible! Dave