> "how carefully other people read an article" is not a valid topic of debate on HN Debate, perhaps not. As feedback, it's absolutely valid. Here you have tw

> "how carefully other people read an article" is not a valid topic of debate on HN Debate, perhaps not. As feedback, it's absolutely valid. Here you have two people whose first reaction is that you seem not to have read the article closely or completely. Will you really not consider the possibility that you didn't? Anyway the operative point didn't occur to me until this morning. The author does indeed start out presenting an argument that could be taken to support the conclusion that Java is no more secure than C. But he never actually draws that conclusion. It does take a closer reading to notice the absence of something than to notice its presence. Your postscript is valid as far as it goes, though the sneering tone of your dismissal ("pointy-haired boss analysis") was unmistakable. I think it went beyond measured, defensible criticism. For the record: I have no connection to SEI CERT or David Svoboda (the author), nor any pre-existing opinion about them.