4 ms·
> I wish there was a way (outside Coalton) to integrate the security that a strong typechecker can provide, Common lisp is optionally strongly typed. SBCL has
by medo-bear 3y ago
> I wish there was a way (outside Coalton) to integrate the security that a strong typechecker can provide,
Common lisp is optionally strongly typed. SBCL has extensive type checking facilities. Coalton is statically typed.
Security does not imply strong (or static) typing, and strong typing definitely does not imply security (thinking your code is secure just because you used strong or static typing is silly). In fact code complexity that static typing introduces can have detrimental effects to overall security.
Helpful starting point on state of type checking in common lisp: https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/type.html https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/type.html
- dannyobrien 3y agoJust to be clearer, I meant security as in confidence in the code running correctly, rather than defended against vulnerabilities.
- medo-bear 3y agoBut software correctness is orthogonal to static typing. You most def should not have the confidence that your software is correct (ie solves the practical problem you are trying to solve) just because it compiles.
- medo-bear 3y agoThis is from update to SBCL yesterday: enhancement: functions with declared return types have their return values type-checked in optimization regimes with high SAFETY and (DEBUG 3). http://sbcl.org/news.html http://sbcl.org/news.html