On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Roshan Mathews <rmath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai > <abpil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The point is that so called compiled languages provide more security > > loop-holes than interpreted ones. C++/C for example provide liberal > > scope for buffer overflow exploits due to use of pointers and manual > > memory management. > > > > Accessing any buffer outside the scope of your data structures is always > > a potential window for the malicious hacker for buffer overflow > exploits. > > And C/C++ are notorious for making this easy providing you with > > different ways of shooting yourself in the foot... > > > That would be because C/C++ are weakly typed, not because they are > compiled. Java is compiled right, does it have buffer overruns? > > I would assume that people are arguing for strong typing for > efficiency. A language with run time dynamic dispatch, like say > Python, will always be slower than something which is statically > typed. > > The "looks like Python, runs like C++" is more than just marketing > speak. I don't know anything about Go, beyond that what I saw in the > Youtube video. But that's the exact same "ideal characteristic" that > other language designers are aiming for, from the few that I know. > If you haven't noticed, "Looks like Python, runs like C++" has a lot of marketing potential, since Python has a reputation to be the cleanest of languages w.r.t syntax and readability and C++, that of power and speed. So if you say this is not marketing speak, I am not buying it... If you are designing a language which you claim is ultimate in this decade, that is exactly the punch line you want... > _______________________________________________ > BangPypers mailing list > BangPypers@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers > -- --Anand _______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
