On 09/03/14 00:40, Mike Gran wrote:
> On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:57 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
> wrote:
>
>
>> I'm asking how the perfect setup is going to be achieved. Simply writing
>> the library in Guile does not make it secure (or maintainable for that
>> matter). My sole question to the openi
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:57 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
wrote:
>I'm asking how the perfect setup is going to be achieved. Simply writing
>the library in Guile does not make it secure (or maintainable for that
>matter). My sole question to the opening post is ‘how will the library
>be assured to
On 08/03/14 16:47, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
> The beauty of scheme is that it is quite possible to design statically
> typed meta language.
Please spare me this approach. It certainly is possible but is a lot of
effort and you get a gimped version of existing languages but without
any real
On 08/03/14 16:37, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote:
> Mateusz Kowalczyk writes:
>
>> On 08/03/14 00:32, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>> Mateusz Kowalczyk writes:
I doubt that going from a single inherently unsafe but bloody fast
language to slightly less unsafe but much slower language is
The beauty of scheme is that it is quite possible to design statically
typed meta language. And if we let the guile hacker doggies chew on the
guile stake a little bit more, you would also see a speedup of the
generated code that will essentially mean that just a tiny bit of C-code
needs to be writ
Mateusz Kowalczyk writes:
> On 08/03/14 00:32, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> Mateusz Kowalczyk 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"? Seriousl
On 08/03/14 00:32, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Mateusz Kowalczyk 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?
Sure. You get rid of pointer ari
Mateusz Kowalczyk 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
On 07/03/14 16:30, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
> On 07/03/14 08:22, Peter TB Brett wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Recently, there have been some really horrible programming errors found in
>> widely-used and security-critical libraries (GnuTLS, for example).
>>
>> These libraries are usually written in C bec
On 07/03/14 08:22, Peter TB Brett wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Recently, there have been some really horrible programming errors found in
> widely-used and security-critical libraries (GnuTLS, for example).
>
> These libraries are usually written in C because C is a "lowest common
> denominator": if a li
10 matches
Mail list logo
