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