David Crocker wrote:
Crispin Cowan wrote:
The above is the art of programming language design. Programs written in
high-level languages are *precisely* specifications that result in the
system generating the program, thereby saving time and eliminating
coding error. You will find exactly those
At 3:55 PM -0700 7/10/04, Crispin Cowan wrote:
However, I think I do see a gap between these extremes. You could have
a formal specification that can be mechanically transformed into a
*checker* program that verifies that a solution is correct, but cannot
actually generate a correct solution.
En un mensaje anterior, Blue Boar escribió:
Fernando Schapachnik wrote:
I smell a discusion going nowhere. What is the point of teaching a
languague?
Teach them to program in a paradigm (better, in all of them, and give them
the
tools to make educated choices about which is better for each
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of ljknews
Sent: 12 July 2004 14:24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SC-L] Programming languages used for security
At 3:55 PM -0700 7/10/04, Crispin Cowan wrote:
However, I think I do see a
der Mouse is correct. I recall a product from the early 80s called The
Last One. There was an advertisement for the product on Prof Doug Comer's
door when I was a grad student at Purdue... the claim was that this product
made designing applications so simple that you'd never have to program
So in all the discussions, I think I'm seeing several main themes:
-Some holes are design or logic errors (possible in any language)
-Some holes are failures to code safely in a given language (language
specific; possibly addressable by switching to a safer language)
-Some holes are harder to
To get REALLY back to the point, I'd like to comment on Fabien's comment
that In my opinion, it's the most important things for a languages,
something to easily validate user input or to encrypt password are a must
have. Fabien is right, but increasingly that's only half the problem.
There
