safer ctype? (was GUIs - A modest Proposal)

[Stephen Hansen]

On 6/12/10 12:46 PM, lkcl wrote:
> On Jun 12, 6:05 pm, Stephen Hansen <me+list/pyt... at ixokai.io> wrote:
>> Its one of the reasons why we *like* Python at my day job. (Though it
>> applies to nearly any other high level language): its inherently safer.
>> A programming goof, oversight or unexpected event causes an exception.
>> It doesn't cause a buffer overflow.
> 
>  ok... analogy: when using g++ to compile c++ code, would you place
> use of "asm" statements into the same sort of foot-shooting category?

Sure, dangerous tools exist for expert users who really, really know
what they're doing, to achieve things that would be either burdensome,
slow, or impossible in the higher level abstraction.

Its one thing for Python to make available foot-shooting tools(this is
good! I love ctypes, with care) for the developer, its another thing
entirely for it to shoot at the ground in the normal course of its
operation and hope it doesn't blow off any big toes. :)

-- 

   Stephen Hansen
   ... Also: Ixokai
   ... Mail: me+list/python (AT) ixokai (DOT) io
   ... Blog: http://meh.ixokai.io/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20100612/1ed41ca2/attachment.sig>