ECMAScript ("Javascript") Version 4 - FALSE ALARM

D. Hugh Redelmeier hugh-pmF8o41NoarQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org
Tue Oct 30 17:01:03 UTC 2007


| From: Ian Petersen <ispeters-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>

| I think you and Lennart have both raised basically the same point.

No, I don't think so.

| You're pointing out that the new language is more complex, right?

No, I didn't say that.  I have not studied the language and have no
opinion on that.

I was only challenging your analysis that could be summarized as: the
security issues for all Turing-complete systems are identical and
hence if you have solved them for one, you have solved them for all.

|  And
| Lennart is pointing out that an interpreter for a new language is
| complex.

I don't think that that is a fair summary of what he said.

I understood him to say new untested code is worthy of more distrust
than old tested code.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists





More information about the Legacy mailing list