ADA made me hate programming
in [ADA]
|
From: anon on 5 Jul 2010 06:49 In <7865d$4c3125c1$433a4efa$24658(a)API-DIGITAL.COM>, "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM(a)mckae.com> writes: >On 07/04/2010 06:22 PM, anon(a)att.net wrote: >> In<ca786$4c30ca52$433a4efa$4690(a)API-DIGITAL.COM>, "Marc A. Criley"<mcNOSPAM(a)mckae.com> writes: >>> By whom? When? What was the nature of the "hack"? Was it done in a >>> government defense lab to assess vulnerability? Did it happen on a >>> battlefield somewhere? Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report". >> >> I do not remember who said but it under the Bush jr. administration >> and they said that the missile were hack. This was reported at the >> end of Bush jr first term. > >"I do not remember who said..." > >"they said..." > >"This was reported..." > >Pffffft. Silly anon. I make a simple request: > > >>Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report". FOX/CBS/ABC/NBC "AP wire" -- should I go on. They reported that the gov't verified that the missiles were hack. Not sure if CNN cover the story. Watching the news is how I found out about it. > >> Also, if a person works in the R&D for a missile, you know the paper >> work a person signs keeps that person from giving too many details, >> unless they would like to be charge with Treason. > >It's not limited to R&D. And it's not the paperwork that a person signs, >it's the security clearance they possess that protects such information. > And while violating one's clearance would subject them to potentially >serious penalties, the nature of the violation would have to be quite >egregious to rise to the level of Treason. > Anytime US is at war, include the ones the we are in today, the charge is more likely to be Treason than any other charge. Of course, that before our current pres and AG. No telling what could happen! I say that because it anyone guess what will happen if those new spys are found guilt. Back in the cold war days it was a charge of Treason and Death when they were found guilty! If you remember you history, there was a couple who were charged with Treason and paid with their lives. >>> Any "outdated system" that works is better than one that exists only as >>> a proposal or in theory. >> >> Yes, outdated. The gov't wants their young fighter who are great at >> video-game war to use be remote controlled missile. A few can act >> like 100s of fighters, but that has been hack. So, the gov't now into >> pattern recognition, where a missile is given a set of pictures, etc. and >> let that puppy go hunting. The system would pick the first, if >> possible do it job, if not goes find the second on the list, and >> so on through the list until the job is done or the list is empty or its >> out of range then it self-destruct to keep the technology from the wrong >> hands. > >(I know I'm playing a fool's game, but it's a holiday weekend so I >figure 'what the hell?' :-) > >You are so phenomenally ignorant of missile technology that it's >laughable. Actually, it's not the ignorance that's laughable, it's your >pretentiousness in supposing yourself in any way knowledgeable enough in >this area to go into a public forum--albeit using your silly >pseudonym--and declaim upon matters of which every word demonstrates >your ignorance. > The robot control drones, the ACLU and others has been trying to stop the gov't from using them. Reference: News On pattern recognition its not silly, just have some inside universities info, that may not be a part of the military info loop yet! It is hard to believe that people in the in the military or other subcontractors do not know since a number of universities like Berkley and MIT with others have been working since the mid 1990s on missile guidance system that use pattern recognition hardware/software. All under the eye of the DoD. I prefer other high tech systems. and some of those tech version might be against the Geneva Conventions, but like they say "War is ...". And since terrorist do not follow the Geneva Convention, why should be in dealing with them. And what I like is under some of those other systems no one get hurt not even a passer by, that is until after the trial then that another issue.. Just a totally clean and may be a very short war. And Ada is prefect for a number of these high tech systems. >I give you points for chutzpah, not many are willing to publicly >proclaim their ignorance with such verve and vigor! > >Marc A. Criley
From: Marc A. Criley on 5 Jul 2010 17:50 I don't think you're a very good Ada programmer or software designer. A good designer needs to plan ahead, anticipate problems, be skeptical of theirs and other's ideas, designs, and software. In these exchanges you show little or no indication of possessing these qualities. For example, in this thread you claimed that it had been reported that missile IFTUs (In-Flight Target Updates) had been hacked. I said: >>>> Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report". You finally responded with: > FOX/CBS/ABC/NBC "AP wire" -- should I go on. Why yes, you should. When was the supposed report supposedly broadcast? Is the video of the report online somewhere? What link? Is there a transcript of the news report, or an article writeup (most news organizations do have online articles about news stories of significant interest--of which hacking in-flight missiles would certainly qualify)? Now, if you thought that would be a sufficient reference, when it is self-evidently inadequately specified, and so vague as to support *nothing*, then you clearly didn't anticipate this obvious problem with your response, suggesting you don't do well in anticipating problems. And that's a real handicap when it comes to designing software. Or you knew this was insufficient, but hoped I wouldn't. This goes back to your apparent lack of problem anticipation abilities. :-) Or you know you can't substantiate the report, but just can't bear to back down in public from something you proclaimed and then fervently defended. It's hard, I know, I've had to do it when I've been mistaken on the facts about some matter. This then illustrates an inability to plan ahead. Immediately upon my questioning your claim, you should have been able to see where this could go (and subsequently has gone) and either made sure you had reputably-sourced facts in hand, or immediately backpedaled. You did neither, and continued to mount a wholly inadequate defense of your questionable claim. So not only did you apparently not realize you had encountered a real problem, but you were unable to foresee the potential consequences as it played out. Again, these are serious weaknesses when it comes to designing software in Ada or any other programming language. Let me give you an example of how to properly defend a claim--from this same posting. I stated that: >> And while violating one's clearance would subject them to >> potentially serious penalties, the nature of the violation would >> have to be quite egregious to rise to the level of Treason. You could have questioned me on this, that I provide some backup for it from a reputable source. You lacked genuine skepticism about my claim, and rather than demanding I back it up, you made another unsourced claim: > Anytime US is at war, include the ones the we are in today, the > charge is more likely to be Treason than any other charge. Refuting this claim is trivial: "In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. "The Cold War period saw few prosecutions for treason. On October 11, 2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he appeared as a spokesman for al-Qaeda and threatened attacks on American soil." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States This is a sort of back-hand support for my claim, in that violating one's security clearance would have to be of an extraordinarily serious nature to rise to the level of treason. It is, however, a thorough repudiation of yours, and from what's considered a fairly reputable source--Wikipedia. (And if you question that source, there are numerous links provided to the reputable sources for its information. See how this works?) There are several additional claims and statements made in the rest of that posting which are indicative of a lack of problem recognition, foresight, and skeptical abilities; and a profound ignorance of how the aerospace and defense industry actually functions. If you want to bring them up, fine, I'll address them. But it's just the "same old same old" when it comes to dealing with your postings. There's so much ignorance and ineptitude in your statements that anything of actual value is lost in the junk. Think before you post. If questioned, can you link or reference a *specific* supporting source? If you're making a claim, and it's disputed, anticipate where it might end up, and prepare for that in advance. Work hard. Think. Marc A. Criley
From: David Thompson on 6 Jul 2010 01:37 On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:16:52 -0400, Wilson <leon.winslow(a)notes.udayton.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:11:41 -0400, <anon(a)anon.org> wrote: > > >Plus: > > Reference: "The Development of the C Language" by Dennis M. Ritchie > > > > As for Algol, Ritchie states: "BCPL, B, and C all fit firmly > > in the traditional procedural family typified by Fortran and Algol 60." > > He never states that Algol or Fortran was used to build C. > > > > > > C is a structured assembly language for the DEC PDP 11. If you doubt > this, go back and examine the PDP 11 assembly language. All of that ++ > and -- are a standard part of the assembly language addressing modes. In No they aren't. PDP-11 has only postinc and predec, and only for addresses. C -- and B on the -7 before the -11 even existed -- has all. The greater *use* of pointer postinc by early programmers was likely influenced by the -11 but that's not the language. > particular, all of those indirect references (pointers) were necessary > because the PDP 11 came with a 16 bit instruction set and only 8 bits were > allowd for the data address. Fortran, Cobol and every other higher level This is nonsense. -11 instructions are 1, 2 or 3 words of 16bits. *All* data addresses and offsets are 16bits. *Branches* have *instruction* *offset* of 8 bits, or 6 bits for (optional?) SOB. > language of the time omitted pointers because almost all of their > addressing was direct. (You might also want to compare C to Bliss another Nope. COBOL FORTRAN PL/I a68 and Pascal all had at least optional by-reference arguments, which had to be implemented as pointer or indirect of some kind, in the worst case (like PDP-8) by modifying code (which was though okay and even clever in those days). The latter three had explicit pointers, and COBOL had 'file' buffers (and sort/merge and later comms) which were often relocated using hidden pointers. (FORTRAN had ASSIGN for GOTO and FORMAT only.) > sturctured assembly language for the PDP 11 and then ask which language > copied from where. The two languages offer an interesting contrast.) BLISS was developed first for the PDP-10 and then extended to the -11 and later VAX and others. It was certainly similar to BCPL/B/C, because all of them were designed to be close to 'the machine', but a slightly generalized model rather than a specific machine. In fact BLISS as a language is somewhat more capable than C because it didn't have to be (self)compiled on the -11. > Richie started on the PDP 7, but quickly moved to the PDP 11 and may have > forgotten the details that led to the final result. > > Also, before you quote Richie or any other author, you need to read a > peice by Isaak Asimov on how authors are the last people to understand > what they did and how they did it. <snip> Asimov wrote quite a bit about the mysteries and vagaries of the creative process, but that's not the same thing as technical documentation or history. Considering that your 'facts' are provably inconsistent with reality and Ritchie's aren't, I know who I believe.
From: Stephen Leake on 6 Jul 2010 07:15 "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM(a)mckae.com> writes: > I don't think you're a very good Ada programmer or software designer. > > A good designer needs to plan ahead, anticipate problems, be skeptical > of theirs and other's ideas, designs, and software. In these exchanges > you show little or no indication of possessing these qualities. > > <snip really excellent post> You must be having a _really_ good weekend :). http://xkcd.com/386/ enjoy! -- -- Stephe
From: Marc A. Criley on 6 Jul 2010 08:25
On 07/06/2010 06:15 AM, Stephen Leake wrote: > "Marc A. Criley"<mcNOSPAM(a)mckae.com> writes: > >> I don't think you're a very good Ada programmer or software designer. >> >> A good designer needs to plan ahead, anticipate problems, be skeptical >> of theirs and other's ideas, designs, and software. In these exchanges >> you show little or no indication of possessing these qualities. >> >> <snip really excellent post> > > You must be having a _really_ good weekend :). > > http://xkcd.com/386/ > > enjoy! > <grin> Marc |