At 10:31 PM +1100 11/13/06, mikeiscool wrote: > On 11/13/06, Glenn and Mary Everhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If there is some construct that NEEDS to be interpreted to gain something, it >> can be justified on that basis. Using interpretive runtimes just to link >> languages, or just to achieve portability when source code portability runs >> pretty well thanks, seems wasteful to me. > > You think source code portability is good enough such that runtime > portability isn't really needed? Anything beyond source code portability tempts the customer into use on a platform where the developer has not tested. -- Larry Kilgallen _______________________________________________ Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
