2 ms·
Of course I want to have secure code. However, do I have to write 100% of my code in such a verbose language in order to guarantee security? I don't think that
by wkornewald 16y ago
Of course I want to have secure code. However, do I have to write 100% of my code in such a verbose language in order to guarantee security? I don't think that any security expert would claim that. It's sufficient if the relevant parts of the system and the communication protocols between your components provide a secure foundation. Writing all of your code in a verbose language would be total overkill and a huge waste of effort. So, in the end a combination of both systems might be the solution. The issue here is that this news post is about "the language of the future". It's definitely far from the language of the future. If at all, it might be a small component of the language(s) of the future (and even for that it should better improve on readability). There's just too much research going into verifiable systems and language theory and by far not enough research into making the majority of our code more expressive and reusable from a very practical point of view.
- loup-vaillant 16y agoI didn't see significant examples of Omega, but… I'd be surprised if a language with a Haskell-like syntax is verbose. The verbosity most likely didn't come from the language itself, but from the proofs. Once you've built the foundations, and proven a host of invariants about them, then you don't need to prove much more when you write the rest of the program. I bet Omega supports the very programming model you advocate: invulnerable foundations, and quickly written "rest of the program". If the code you saw was verbose, that's probably because it was foundation code. (After all, standard data structures are par of the foundations.)