4 ms·
I'm seeing where a lot of them could be prevented if you set up your types very scrupulously, but I don't think most of them are inherently type errors. That s
by bunderbunder 12y ago
I'm seeing where a lot of them could be prevented if you set up your types very scrupulously, but I don't think most of them are inherently type errors.
That said, I would say that the OP's assertion is itself a type error. The link is a list of "most dangerous" errors, where "most dangerous" is specifically defined as bugs that create security vulnerabilities. This is being used in support of a statement about what the most common bugs are. "Security vulnerabilities" and "software defects" are two different (if related) things, so that's a type error in the argument. And "dangerous" and "common" are two different characteristics, so that's a second type error in the argument.
- dllthomas 12y agoAren't "dangerous" and "common" different values of the same type?
- bunderbunder 12y agoThey might be different subtypes of a supertype called "stuff you should worry about". But not every common error leads to an arbitrary code execution exploit (for example), and not every arbitrary arbitrary code execution exploit is a result of a common error.