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: | 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). David. ------------------- 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