Dana Epp wrote:
My what a week of interesting discussions. Lets end this week on a
good and light hearted note.
Insert various analogies between programming languages and automobiles
here :)
* $MY_FAVORITE_LANGUAGE is like a $REALLY_COOL_CAR, while
$YOUR_FAVORITE_LANGUAGE is like a
David Crocker wrote...
I think there are two other questions that should be asked before
trying to answer this:
1. Is it appropriate to look for a single general purpose programming
language? Consider the following application areas:
a) Application packages
b) Operating systems, device
My what a week of interesting discussions. Lets end this week on a good
and light hearted note.
Admit it. We all know the most secure programming language is Logo anyways.
HLNIt's hip to be 'rep 4 [ fwd 50 rt 90]'/HLN
Laugh. Or the world laughs at you. Have a good weekend guys.
Crispin Cowan
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 arguments in the
Wall, Kevin wrote:
My vary reason for posing these questions is to see if there is any
type of consensus at all on what mechanisms / features a language
should and should not support WITH RESPECT TO SECURE PROGRAMMING.
For example, you mentioned garbage collection. To that I would add
things like
Programs written in high-level languages are *precisely*
specifications that result in the system generating the program,
Whilst I agree that the distinction between specification and
programming languages is not completely clear cut, there is
nevertheless a fundamental difference between
David Crocker wrote:
Whilst I agree that the distinction between specification and
programming languages is not completely clear cut, there is
nevertheless a fundamental difference between specification
and programming.
In a programming language, you tell the computer what you want
it to
