The Ada language was written from the ground up to enable verifiable=20
code to be written. C was designed to write operating systems.

Using your analogy, C provides the architect the ability to choose the=20
building material with the appropriate "bombproof-ness" they desire.=20
Hopefully they choose the right level. Ada on the other hand, tries to=20
determine the appropriate level or at least let you know that the level=20
you chose was not right.

As an old mentor once told me, with C you have a gun, you have a live=20
round, and you have feet, if you would like to aim at your feet and pull=20
the trigger, go for it. Most other languages will at least warn you=20
about what you are about to do (in corollary, kernel programming lines=20
up everyone elses feet, just in case you miss your own :))

C# and Java make it _much_ easier to write less exploitable code (no=20
pointers to get wrong) C++ can be better than C, or it can be the same,=20
depending on what language constructs you choose to use. The bigger=20
issue is that with most languages you are looking at using multiple 3rd=20
party libraries, any of which can hide the exploit.

On 2012-10-10 11:36, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> On 10 October 2012 08:06, V G <x.solarwind.x@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> C is an absolutely wonderful language. I blame stupid people for the
>> software vulnerabilities.
>>
>
> You are talking about hundreds of thousands of people here... ;-)=20
> Virtually
> everyone who makes program makes mistakes (bugs), no exception. We=20
> cannot
> blame benign people as they are trying to build nice things while=20
> some
> other are trying to take these down. Think of an architect, who build
> houses, and then they would pushed to work against all possible=20
> terrorist
> attacks -- to survive or avoid plane crashes, bombs all sorts, the=20
> 3rd
> World War in a heavy bomb raid. You cannot build forts instead of=20
> every
> single buildings...
>
> We need something therefore that prevents exploiting mistakes and=20
> that
> helps identifying mistakes. So if a language and/or the platform (OS=20
> and
> Hardware) would not help preventing to run an arbitrary code on the=20
> victims
> computer, then we cannot call the system as safe. Maybe the language=20
> itself
> is wonderful, but we need something that is also secure. In aviation
> industry developers tend to use Ada, not C, not C++, not C#, not=20
> Objective
> C, nor Java...
>
> Tamas
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> It's so good because it allows such a fine level of control and you=20
>> always
>> know exactly what's going on. I like to know that the code I write=20
>> really
>> represents the instructions sent to the CPU. Other languages do=20
>> funny
>> things behind your back, which is fine, but in my opinion, it's not=20
>> a
>> reason to blame C.
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
>
>
>
> --
> int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s=3D"int main() { char *a,*s,*q;
> printf(s=3D%s%s%s, q=3D%s%s%s%s,s,q,q,a=3D%s%s%s%s,q,q,q,a,a,q); }",
> q=3D"\"",s,q,q,a=3D"\\",q,q,q,a,a,q); }

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.