2014-05-04 23:40 GMT+02:00 Magnus Therning <mag...@therning.org>: > On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Cecil Westerhof wrote: > > I heard the stand that functional programming made it difficult to > > write secure programs. I do not know enough of functional > > programming yet to determine the value of a statement like this. > > What is the take here about it? > > It would be interesting to hear WHY functional programming would yield > less secure programs. What would then be the paradigm that results in > most security? Imperative, logical? >
Modular, the suggestion being that that could not be done in a functional language. > It's widely acknowledged that writing secure programs is difficult. > Agreed, and often an afterthought, which makes it even more difficult. :'( > state that is easy to argue about. That means we want immutability as > deeply rooted in the language as possible. > It is something to get used too, but I found it a lot less difficult as I imagined. And with learning the language better, it will become easier I expect. -- Cecil Westerhof -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
