On Feb 10, 2015 3:25 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > constraints. Type check is one of them. There are many people argue
"This
> > language is secure and robust because it has _static_ types".
>
> These people are wrong. Languages can't really be secure or robust, only
> code impleme
Hi Stas,
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> > constraints. Type check is one of them. There are many people argue "This
> > language is secure and robust because it has _static_ types".
>
> These people are wrong. Languages can't really be secure or robust, only
> code
Hi!
> constraints. Type check is one of them. There are many people argue "This
> language is secure and robust because it has _static_ types".
These people are wrong. Languages can't really be secure or robust, only
code implemented in these languages can, and we have witnessed many
examples of
Hi all,
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Lowrey wrote:
>
>> First, let me say that I have voted against the current scalar types RFC.
>> Please do not let that color your evaluation of the rest of this message
>> ...
>>
>> I want to go
Hi Daniel,
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Lowrey wrote:
> First, let me say that I have voted against the current scalar types RFC.
> Please do not let that color your evaluation of the rest of this message
> ...
>
> I want to go on record (for the n-th time) as being unhappy about any
>
