Galchin Vasili wrote on Friday, January 4:
I stumbled across this page. It seems that Haskell and other
strongly typed functional languages like Ml/OCaml will fare much,
much better, e.g. buffer overrun. Thoughts . comments.
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
for me, it looks like saying that
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Perhaps Coverity's interest could be
piqued if they were made aware of Haskell's emergence
as an important platform in security-sensitive
industries such as finance and chip design, and of
the significant influence that Haskell is having on the
design of all other major
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Perhaps Coverity's interest could be
piqued if they were made aware of Haskell's emergence
as an important platform in security-sensitive
industries such as finance and chip design, and of
the significant influence that Haskell is having on the
Galchin Vasili wrote:
Hello,
https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/daisy/bsi/articles/knowledge/coding/295.html
I stumbled across this page. It seems that Haskell and other strongly
typed functional languages like Ml/OCaml will fare much, much better,
e.g. buffer overrun. Thoughts .
Hi,
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Galchin Vasili wrote:
Hello,
https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/daisy/bsi/articles/knowledge/coding/295.html
I stumbled across this page. It seems that Haskell and other strongly
typed functional languages like Ml/OCaml will fare much, much better,
Am Sonntag, 6. Januar 2008 14:27 schrieb Mads Lindstrøm:
Hi,
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Galchin Vasili wrote:
Hello,
https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/daisy/bsi/articles/knowledge/coding
/295.html
I stumbled across this page. It seems that Haskell and other strongly
typed
Mads Lindstrøm wrote:
Hi,
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Human kind has yet to design a programming language which eliminates all
possible bugs. ;-)
And we never will.
Quite so. How can a machine possibly tell whether a given behaviour is a
bug or an intended behaviour? This is impossible.
Daniel Fischer wrote:
Just because I don't know:
what bugs would be possible in a language having only the instruction
return ()
Bug #1: You cannot write any nontrivial programs. ;-)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Am Sonntag, 6. Januar 2008 15:18 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
Daniel Fischer wrote:
Just because I don't know:
what bugs would be possible in a language having only the instruction
return ()
Bug #1: You cannot write any nontrivial programs. ;-)
That's not a bug, that's a feature.
Hello,
https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/daisy/bsi/articles/knowledge/coding/295.html
I stumbled across this page. It seems that Haskell and other strongly typed
functional languages like Ml/OCaml will fare much, much better, e.g. buffer
overrun. Thoughts . comments.
Vasili
10 matches
Mail list logo
