ljknews wrote:
I think it will be properly considered when the most strict portion
of the software world is using language X. I have used many
programs where the flaws in the program make it clear that I care not
one whit about whether the authors of that program have opinion about
anything I mig
At 9:10 AM -0700 7/1/04, Blue Boar wrote:
>Language X may very well be a much better starting point, I don't know. I do believe
>that it will never be properly looked at until the whole world starts using it for
>everything, though.
I think it will be properly considered when the most strict p
I can just see an OS go into a wait state now while the VM/.NET or whatever
does garbage collection; and the delays while the intermediate code is
turned into executable code by the loaders.
Not!
HLL have given us portability (witness - *nix) but at some price of
performance. The HW develop
Peter Amey wrote:
There are languages which are more suitable for the construction of
high-integrity systems and have been for years. We could have
adopted Modula-2 back in the 1980s, people could take the blinkers of
prejudice off and look properly at Ada. Yet we continue to use
C-derived langua
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Michael S Hines
> Sent: 30 June 2004 17:00
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SC-L] ACM Queue article and security education
>
>
> If the state of the art in automobile design had progressed
>
I tend to wonder if I missed something along the way.
When I left the friendly confines of school back in '84 and entered the
wonderful world of "do or die" I was handed 2 sets of listings. One was only 8
inches high, the other was slightly over 15. Those were my 2 new systems and
they were writt
