[BangPypers] Google Go

Darkseid lorddaemon at gmail.com
Wed Nov 11 16:13:12 CET 2009


>
> Javascript is weakly
> typed but you don't have buffer overflow problems there.
That's something I've never understood even though the all powerful 
wikipedia says JS is weakly typed. Can someone give me an example to 
illustrate the weak typing?
> 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
>> typed.
>>
>>
>>     
> Again why would strong typing get you efficiency?
>   
I think Anand meant statically typed (he used strongly typed first and 
then used statically typed while clearly referring to the same thing). 
Static typing certainly allows for a great deal of compile time 
optimization, neh?

Best,
Sidu.

Harish Mallipeddi wrote:
> 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
>>>       
>> exploits.
>>     
>>>  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?
>>
>>
>>     
> Going by the popular definition of weak/strong typing, what has weak typing
> in C/C++ anything to do with buffer overflow errors? Javascript is weakly
> typed but you don't have buffer overflow problems there.
>
> 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
>> typed.
>>
>>
>>     
> Again why would strong typing get you efficiency?
>
>   


More information about the BangPypers mailing list