Chris Uppal wrote: > David Hopwood wrote: > >>>But some of the advocates of statically >>>typed languages wish to lump these languages together with assembly >>>language a "untyped" in an attempt to label them as unsafe. >> >>A common term for languages which have defined behaviour at run-time is >>"memory safe". For example, "Smalltalk is untyped and memory safe." >>That's not too objectionable, is it? > > I find it too weak, as if to say: "well, ok, it can't actually corrupt memory > as such, but the program logic is still apt go all over the shop"...
Well, it might ;-) (In case anyone thinks I am being pejorative toward not-statically-typed languages here, I would say that the program logic can *also* "go all over the shop" in a statically typed, memory safe language. To avoid this, you need at least a language that is "secure" in the sense used in capability systems, which is a stronger property than memory safety.) -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
