3 ms·
> This is actually kind of a point for the other side. I wanted to move the goalpost from "Java is insecure" to "the Java sandbox is insecure". I completely ag
by Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 12y ago
> This is actually kind of a point for the other side.
I wanted to move the goalpost from "Java is insecure" to "the Java sandbox is insecure". I completely agree with the second statement, so I don't think I made a point for any other side.
- trippy_biscuits 12y agoYou made the point that I was trying to make: implementations are not secure. A programming language can follow a philosophy but implementations never quite line up with the theory. We only use implementations of the theory and experience shows that implementations all have vulnerabilities.
- Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 12y agoI'm sorry if I misrepresented your post, but I feel you do the same to mine. I didn't say the JVM is insecure - I said the sandboxing part of the JVM is insecure and C++ doesn't have anything comparable.