On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Roshan Mathews <rmath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai > <abpil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The point is that so called compiled languages provide more security > > loop-holes than interpreted ones. C++/C for example provide liberal > > scope for buffer overflow exploits due to use of pointers and manual > > memory management. > > > > Accessing any buffer outside the scope of your data structures is always > > a potential window for the malicious hacker for buffer overflow > exploits. > > And C/C++ are notorious for making this easy providing you with > > different ways of shooting yourself in the foot... > > > That would be because C/C++ are weakly typed, not because they are > compiled. Java is compiled right, does it have buffer overruns? > > Going by the popular definition of weak/strong typing, what has weak typing in C/C++ anything to do with buffer overflow errors? Javascript is weakly typed but you don't have buffer overflow problems there. I would assume that people are arguing for strong typing for > efficiency. A language with run time dynamic dispatch, like say > Python, will always be slower than something which is statically > typed. > > Again why would strong typing get you efficiency? -- Harish Mallipeddi http://blog.poundbang.in _______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
