English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Q: safe language
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-08-31 (18:02)
From: Florian Hars <hars@b...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Q: safe language
SooHyoung Oh wrote:
 > Some questions about "safe" language:
 > - Is it necessary for a safe language to have a type system?

Yes, but it needn't be static nor strong. Perl (like the other, less obfuscated
dialects of Lisp :-)) is a safe language, too: there is no way that the
execution of a valid instruction like an access of a variable will result in a
program crash, the only risk is an unexpected result if you miss some $ in

In C, on the other hand, it is perfectly possible to have a valid code fragment

   int * i_ptr;

   i_ptr = get_some_address();
   &i = 42;

that may occasionally crash.

 > - Isn't Lisp a safe language?

Yes, as Vitaly Lugovsky has convincingly demonstrated in another message.

Yours, Florian
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