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