4 ms·

Indeed I did not use quotes. The fact remains that the proportion remains higher for Python. In a way it's sad that Javascript isn't implemented on top of an a

Indeed I did not use quotes. The fact remains that the proportion remains higher for Python. In a way it's sad that Javascript isn't implemented on top of an accessible bytecode interpreter (VM) that someone could write another translator for. I'd love it if browsers could be extended in Lua.

gojomo 14y ago
The "proportion" of what remains "higher", exactly? Google only shows the first ~900 results; the 'about' count of results beyond that are very rough estimates. To the extent such counts are indicative of anything at all, the exact-phrases will have stronger implications than the counts for fuzzier non-phrase queries. For example, your queries will also return pages that include the comment, "there are very few security exploits in Python".
ProblemFactory 14y ago
The fact remains that search result numbers are completely useless for estimating the security of a language. Even more so without quotes. * Search results show visibility on the web, nothing else. * Without quotes, it may mean that more people talk about Python security than Java security. Or about writing exploits in Python, not for for Python. * Java is extremely secure if it is run in the same place as Python, and not executing untrusted bytecode in a browser plugin. Nobody runs unknown Python code on their machines. Java vs. Flash. vs. Javascript makes more sense as a comparison, because all three are used for executing untrusted code. In other news, I get 1M search results for "bieber security exploit" and 27M for "google security exploit" without quotes. But I don't think Justin Bieber or Google have more security issues than Java browser plugins.