[BangPypers] Google Go
Anand Balachandran Pillai
abpillai at gmail.com
Wed Nov 11 14:00:19 CET 2009
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Roshan Mathews <rmathews at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai
> <abpillai at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The point is that so called compiled languages provide more security
> > loop-holes than interpreted ones. C++/C for example provide liberal
> > scope for buffer overflow exploits due to use of pointers and manual
> > memory management.
> > Accessing any buffer outside the scope of your data structures is always
> > a potential window for the malicious hacker for buffer overflow
> > And C/C++ are notorious for making this easy providing you with
> > different ways of shooting yourself in the foot...
> That would be because C/C++ are weakly typed, not because they are
> compiled. Java is compiled right, does it have buffer overruns?
> I would assume that people are arguing for strong typing for
> efficiency. A language with run time dynamic dispatch, like say
> Python, will always be slower than something which is statically
> The "looks like Python, runs like C++" is more than just marketing
> speak. I don't know anything about Go, beyond that what I saw in the
> Youtube video. But that's the exact same "ideal characteristic" that
> other language designers are aiming for, from the few that I know.
If you haven't noticed, "Looks like Python, runs like C++" has a lot of
marketing potential, since Python has a reputation to be the cleanest
of languages w.r.t syntax and readability and C++, that of power and speed.
So if you say this is not marketing speak, I am not buying it...
If you are designing a language which you claim is ultimate in this
decade, that is exactly the punch line you want...
> BangPypers mailing list
> BangPypers at python.org
More information about the BangPypers