RE: Programming languages -- the "third rail" of secure coding

[Nick Lothian <nl () essential com au>]

> > Java/C#: Reasonably safe (both provide protection against 
> buffer overflows,
> > are type safe and provide built-in security mechanisms)
> > FORTRAN/COBOL: Don't know - my impression is that COBOL is 
> fairly safe
> > Scripting Languages: Depends on the language. Lack of type 
> safety can be a
> > problem, but on the other hand they are usually safe from 
> buffer overflows
> > and the fact they you can do a lot more in fewer lines of 
> code can make the
> > code safer by making errors more obvious.
> >
> > Are there other languages in widespread use (ie, the 
> language must be used
> > more than - say - Python) that are safer than those listed above? 
>
> Certainly Ada is a lot safer than those above, and the SPARK subset
> we have discussed here is even safer (not just by being a subset but
> also by supporting proofs of correctness).  SPARK is much less widely
> deployed that whatever was used to implement Internet Explorer, but I
> have strong preference as to which of the two I would want used in the
> programming of fly-by-wire for an airplane on which I fly.
> -- 
> Larry Kilgallen

What features make Ada safer than Java/C#? (I only have limited experience
with Ada but from memory there was nothing that jumps out at me as something
that Java lacks)

Nick