Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Perhaps Coverity's interest could be
piqued if they were made aware of Haskell's emergence
as an important platform in security-sensitive
industries such as finance and chip design, and of
the significant influence that Haskell is having on the
desig
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
> Perhaps Coverity's interest could be
> piqued if they were made aware of Haskell's emergence
> as an important platform in security-sensitive
> industries such as finance and chip design, and of
> the significant influence that Haskell is having on the
> design of all other
Galchin Vasili wrote on Friday, January 4:
>> I stumbled across this page. It seems that Haskell and other
>> strongly typed functional languages like Ml/OCaml will fare much,
>> much better, e.g. buffer overrun. Thoughts . comments.
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> for me, it looks like saying that
Am Sonntag, 6. Januar 2008 15:18 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
> Daniel Fischer wrote:
> > Just because I don't know:
> > what bugs would be possible in a language having only the instruction
> > return ()
>
> Bug #1: You cannot write any nontrivial programs. ;-)
>
That's not a bug, that's a feature.
Daniel Fischer wrote:
Just because I don't know:
what bugs would be possible in a language having only the instruction
return ()
Bug #1: You cannot write any nontrivial programs. ;-)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://
Mads Lindstrøm wrote:
Hi,
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Human kind has yet to design a programming language which eliminates all
possible bugs. ;-)
And we never will.
Quite so. How can a machine possibly tell whether a given behaviour is a
"bug" or an "intended behaviour"? This is impossible
Am Sonntag, 6. Januar 2008 14:27 schrieb Mads Lindstrøm:
> Hi,
>
> Andrew Coppin wrote:
> > Galchin Vasili wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/daisy/bsi/articles/knowledge/coding
> > >/295.html
> > >
> > > I stumbled across this page. It seems that Haskell and other
Hi,
Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Galchin Vasili wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/daisy/bsi/articles/knowledge/coding/295.html
> >
> > I stumbled across this page. It seems that Haskell and other strongly
> > typed functional languages like Ml/OCaml will fare much, much
Galchin Vasili wrote:
Hello,
https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/daisy/bsi/articles/knowledge/coding/295.html
I stumbled across this page. It seems that Haskell and other strongly
typed functional languages like Ml/OCaml will fare much, much better,
e.g. buffer overrun. Thoughts . comm
Hello Galchin,
Friday, January 4, 2008, 12:36:03 AM, you wrote:
> I stumbled across this page. It seems that Haskell and other
> strongly typed functional languages like Ml/OCaml will fare much,
> much better, e.g. buffer overrun. Thoughts . comments.
for me, it looks like saying that hask
10 matches
Mail list logo
