Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

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: -- (:)
From: David Frese <dfrese@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Q: safe language
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:44, Vitaly Lugovsky wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, SooHyoung Oh wrote:
> > I heard Ocaml is "safe" language.
> > 
> > Some questions about "safe" language:
> > - Is it necessary for a safe language to have a type system?

I would say yes, and it definitely needs a strict type system (I guess
there is no language without a type system at all). Strict means: every
value has a precise type - which does not mean that there are no
polymorphic types, or type conversions.

> > - Isn't Lisp a safe language?

In that respect Lisp is a safe language - or at least Scheme; I don't
know that much about Lisp. But "safe" can be interpreted in a lot of
other ways of course.

>  (cadr '(1))

This shows that Lisp is safe, because it results in an error, and does
not return some value from out of nowhere (or does it).

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: