On Mar 10, 2:33 pm, Piet van Oostrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (PO) wrote: > >PO> Piet van Oostrum wrote: > >>>>>>>> "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (GG) wrote: > > >GG> "Given this indispensable process and architecture issue, isn't it > >>>> obvious GG> that it's totally irrelevant to the system's overall safety > >>>> whether the GG> compiler has performed the further smattering of > >>>> semantically puny GG> 'verifications' allowed by mandatory-declaration, > >>>> stating-typing GG> languages?" - Alex Martelli >
I've just been at a student conference in Krakow (SFI) where I heard a talk by Gilad Bracha on the problems with Java (and he is in a position to know!). I will write it up in a blog entry, but my two favourite quotes from his talk are: 1. The programs that can be written in languages with static type systems are a subset of all possible programs. For some people this is enough. 2. Mandatory static typing is an inherent security risk. He has a very interesting tale about Java to demonstrate the second point... Michael http://www.manning.com/foord > >>> I couldn't find the original of this. I would like to see it in its > >>> context. Googling didn't reveal anything but this Python-URL. > >PO> My google is better than yours then: > >PO>http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-March/193864.html > > Thanks. I probably have searched for "mandatory-declaration, static-typing > languages" instead of "mandatory-declaration, stating-typing languages" > -- > Piet van Oostrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > URL:http://pietvanoostrum.com[PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] > Private email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
