Mateusz Kowalczyk <[email protected]> writes:
> I doubt that going from a single inherently unsafe but bloody fast
> language to slightly less unsafe but much slower language is an
> advantage here…
"Slightly less unsafe"? Seriously?
> Do you feel like you can provide correctness proofs for your
> implementations of such security critical libraries? Scheme isn't
> exactly the safest language.
If you'd like to write a new TLS (or other widely-used security
critical) library in Haskell, along with formal and verifiable
correctness proofs, and that would be easy enough to use from programs
written in other languages such that it could actually make a viable
replacement for GnuTLS et al, that would be a great contribution to our
community, and I would *sincerely* thank you for it.
However, what I've mostly seen from you is negativity and FUD about
Scheme and Guile, both here and on IRC. That is _not_ appreciated.
Mark
