Browse thread
[Caml-list] Q: safe language
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Mike Lin <mikelin@M...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Q: safe language |
> Ok, fixed. But I don't see any difference between segfault and NIL passed > as file descriptor. Program fails - and it does not matter, was it "low > level" fault or unhandled exception or uncorrect behaviour. It makes a big difference if you're running in a realtime system with a shared memory model. > Okee. Lisp execution environment is safe. Java execution environment is > safe. C execution environment could be safe. But C is not a safe language, > as well as Java and Lisp. The meaning of "safe" is completely nebulous here. Type safety is provided very well by OCaml. But then we have things like # max_int;; - : int = 1073741823 # max_int + 1;; - : int = -1073741824 Obvious performance and practicality concerns preclude checking the bounds on every addition operation. Nonetheless, this could without much stretch of the imagination be called "unsafe". -Mike ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners