Just throwing my 2 cents in here: I don't think it'd be appropriate in OpenBSD base, but i'd love to get involved in writing a *nix environment in a "safe" language and at one point was thinking of building a linux distro where all the core tools are in Python - more for the fun of it than anything serious, but if anyone wants to get together to do this kind of project with a focus on security and safety i'd love to get back to it.
I've also experimented (as all serious coders have) with my own lisp variant, and would love to make that the basis of a small set of unix tools with quick compilation. Reply off-list if interested. On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:47 AM, <bytevolc...@safe-mail.net> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:24:52 +0100 > Nicolas Schmidt <schmi...@math.hu-berlin.de> wrote: > > > So they wrote a program that was a) shitty and b) memory-safe? Those are > two orthogonal dimensions. Also, the anecdotal evidence that safe languages > attract bad programmers does not imply that using safe languages is bad: a > good programmer won't suddenly commit such atrocities as you mentioned, > just because they use a safe language. > > A good programmer won't even need these languages in the first > place. Case in point, the entire OpenBSD dev team. :) > > > Finally, your example probably speaks more about business practices than > about safe programming languages. If you want to compare Java to a > non-memory-safe language, you should compare it to one that is also > designed *for* (instead of *by*) programmers, like Cobol. > > It goes back to the point I make though, that these languages encourage > this kind of behavior by promoting a false sense of security, hence > complacency. > >
