Re: trying to get back to fortran (was: Trust an Aussie to cut through the bull***)

Dan Nagle wrote:
Hello,

On 2008-07-29 01:29:27 -0400, Gib Bogle <g.bogle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

Gib Bogle wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/28/rice-adviser-iraq-invasio_n_115398.html



My


apologies - this was meant for another newsgroup.


Don't apologize, I got a kick out of it.

Last night, I finished Richard Clarke's book.
He explains the invasion as the result of an idee fixe,
and, rather politely, explains why it was counter-productive.
Clarke got into cyber security before leaving government
(on the grounds that he was demoted after being ignored
as a counter-terrorism advisor).

(Trying desperately to get this back to Fortran ...)
I hope Fortran will be one of the languages to have
a language-specific Annex in the initial release
of the OWG-V TR on reducing programming vulnerabilities.
(That's bureaucratic-speak for bugs.) Many programmers
will be held to OWG-V standards.

I suppose we'll never eliminate fat-finger mistakes. :-(
(That's Malaligned Digital-Keyboard Impact Sequence
for you guvmint types. :-)


Dan,


Can you explain in short what OWG-V stands for? Is an article in a Law or what? What do the letters stand for?

I am Dutch and have not heard of this standard.


Kind regards,


Jan Gerrit Kootstra
.

Quantcast