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: 2001-08-03 10:55:40 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!news-out.nibble.net!news-in.nibble.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!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: <9kci3p$ri$1@elf.eng.bsdi.com> <9kdeuv$dfh@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9kecu6$f8i@augusta.math.psu.edu> Organization: Psycho-Neurotic Institute for the Very, Very Nervous Reply-To: kaz@ashi.footprints.net User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (Linux) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 17:55:39 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.68.85.82 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.bc.home.com 996861339 24.68.85.82 (Fri, 03 Aug 2001 10:55:39 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 10:55:39 PDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11241 comp.lang.c:71950 comp.lang.c++:79748 comp.lang.functional:7267 Date: 2001-08-03T17:55:39+00:00 List-Id: In article <9kecu6$f8i@augusta.math.psu.edu>, Dan Cross wrote: >In article , >Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>But if you say ``the software is full of mistakes'', no further >>qualification is needed. It's obvious who wrote it, and therefore >>who made the mistakes. > >Hmm, I hear what you're saying; the only problem I have with `mistake' >is that it has a less severe connotation (``oh dang; I made a mistake >and ordered a coke instead of ginger ale...'', ``I made a mistake and >burned the muffins...''). Maybe ``error'' is a better word. ``The >software is full of errors.'' I hear you. But again, ``error'' has a weakened meaning in the context of computing, because it's sometimes used to mean ``an environmental condition that software has to deal with'' like running out of memory, bad sector on a disk, unreachable server, etc. I don't know whether there is a word for ``mistake'' which also has conntations of severity, so that it's inapplicable to situations like ordering the wrong soft drink. I checked an online thesaurus, and it came up with nothing. ;)