Re: Why is java considered a language for "web" or "internet" programming?
One thing is certain. you are talking about security capabilities that
perl never intended, nor need, to support. So claiming that java is more =
secure because it supports capabilities perl does not need, is not a
very good argument, neither specifically nor generally.
This means that perl is still capable of creating as secure code as java =
for all the reasons I have mentioned in all my other posts in this thread=
.
I am not going to give detailed responses to most of your comments,
because the previous sentences would cover them. My comments about
mobile code in perl was a general observation, not
Chris Smith wrote:
Tom Forsmo <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
But if you want support for the same mobile code safety scenario
as the one java supports, you only need to build a library to handle i=
t.
It does not need to be a part of the language.
Hmm. One wonders why Sun disagreed with you. Perhaps you are just
smarter than anyone at Sun. Okay, I'm just being facetious. You can't=
do it with a library in Perl. Someone else's malicious piece of code
would never call routines from your library.
The kind of library I was thinking of was one that performed cleaning
and code checking of the mobile code before it was executed. But that's
as far as it would go. That does not mean I would recommend using perl
to write mobile code.
Perl's implementation of
file I/O and such things do not check security constraints. All you
have is OS-level security, which is checked at process granularity.
That's true=B8 but as I said perl was not built to cover that use because=
of lack of need.
My point is that a dynamic language such as perl, is perfectly capable=
of as safe code as a statically typed language such as java is, perhap=
s
safer.
Okay; if you were talking about type systems, you probably should have =
said so. No one else was talking about type systems. There are
advantages to static types in preventing some bugs, but that wasn't the=
discussion here.
Basically, that's what I was talking about.
tom