Sure, but I would challenge that it is a rather meaningless statement. I can keep my children safer if I keep them inside and eliminate all the sharp corners, but then they will never get to use the swimming pool in our back yard. Type safety can be good and appropriate, but it is not the only factor.
Perhaps we will get to a world where all the "management overhead" doesn't matter, but until then, the extra cost for type safety should be weighed against other factors, not just discounted out of hand. Getting back to the topic at hand, perhaps building a Sauder cabinet is less likely to end up having you harm yourself with tools, but the end product is not always as strong. The "price" of having more structure is the loss of some high end features. That said, I own some such shelving and they work fairly well, but I don't discount building shelves (letting someone else do the work) because of a higher "risk" doing so. Just a thought. Brad Quoting Gary McGraw <g...@cigital.com>: > Building secure software in a non type safe language is much harder > than building secure software in a type safe language (like Java or > C#). _______________________________________________ Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com) as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community. _______________________________________________
