gdp

12 ms·

91.
by gdp 17y ago
The security needs to be in the browser - as in the user needs to enforce the security, not the code - leaving it up to developers to specify what permissions things should have is a recipe for lazy developers getting us into a situation
92.
by gdp 17y ago
'basically free' * lots of users = not free.
93.
by gdp 17y ago
> If we follow the idea of killing everything that's "insecure" then we will end up killing everything, because nothing is 100% secure Perhaps, but killing off the stuff that is obviously and demonstrably broken seems like a pretty se
94.
by gdp 17y ago
> Never emit contents of any variable to the browser without treating it with htmlspecialchars() (or equivalent) first. That seems like one way of using a sledgehammer to needlessly burn server-side CPU cycles.
95.
by gdp 17y ago
That was both not-obvious from your comment, and quite irrelevant, given that I can only see one complaint that stems from the design of the DOM API. The rest of them are all based on the flawed language security model. Basically an "API"
96.
by gdp 17y ago
Which API are you talking about? I don't mean to sound condescending, but following the general tone of your post, are you sure you know what an API is? The take-home point for me was that the execution model for Javascript is inherentl
97.
by gdp 17y ago
Right, but that's just a social distinction. It does nothing to protect users from careless web developers, and it does nothing to help web developers be less careless. Please, somebody think of the users! There are obvious technical solut
98.
by gdp 17y ago
What is 'trusted' javascript though? There is no differentiation between 'trusted' and 'untrusted', which I think was the point that the presentation was making.
99.
by gdp 17y ago
I said as much in the blog comments, but I'll repeat it here too. The issues noted in the presentation, plus the fact that the language is a bit of a dog, is why I suggested proof-carrying code as a replacement for Javascript: http://www.
100.
by gdp 17y ago
TV will always have a place as something people can twitter about in real time.
101.
by gdp 17y ago
Well, sure, I wasn't hoping that somebody would say "this already exists and here it is" (though that might be nice) - I was saying "here's something that would improve my life". Maybe I'll even take the time to implement it one of these d
102.
by gdp 17y ago
I didn't enumerate the reasons that I don't use dynamic languages, because that would have been flame-bait territory. I see this suggestion as a way in which static languages could be better at prototyping in the same way that dynamic langu
103.
Two (programming language) features that would improve my life(plsadventures.com)
14 points by gdp 17y ago|6 comments
104.
by gdp 17y ago
> Next time I'll run into someone I'll first ask what school he attends and who is his advisor instead of arguing about what he semantically meant describing his field. If you actually meant the reverse of that, then I agree that woul
105.
by gdp 17y ago
> Amichail said SPJ is not member of that community and that's perfectly true. My argument was that it is impossible to exclude SPJ from any sensible definition of "theoretical computer science", unless you are taking those words and
106.
by gdp 17y ago
I think the distinction is useful as it stands. Given that a lot of computer "science" is an applied "science" (I use scare quotes deliberately because I think some of the "science" content is dubious), the "theoretical" distinction makes
107.
Peter Landin Obituary(guardian.co.uk)
13 points by gdp 17y ago|0 comments
108.
by gdp 17y ago
I did read the thread, thanks. The "contrast" is being highlighted, but I can't see anyone in there seriously advancing the idea that all of the things I've described aren't "theoretical CS" - they just suggest that there aren't many people
109.
by gdp 17y ago
I kinda switched off before the flame-bait portion even started. The first few paragraphs of text appear to be confusing Lisp/Scheme with 'functional programming' as a paradigm, and making an argument about one using the other. There woul
110.
by gdp 17y ago
> You're wrong in the "not shared by many" part. At least the first dozen comments on that link support my position that programming, logic and semantics are all "theoretical computer science". You appear to have produced an example
111.
by gdp 17y ago
Purely anecdotal, but does anyone else notice while browsing around even the (largely static) unauthenticated pages that the generation times are a bit lousy?
112.
by gdp 17y ago
So your assertion is that theoretical computer science is complexity theory and algorithmic analysis? How about any of these? Semantics Concurrency theory Theories of refinement Type theory The Curry-Howard Correspondence (and results deriv
113.
by gdp 17y ago
Because there is no objective measure for "quality" within an individual implementation within a language. The best we can hope for is some guarantee that people know what the tools and techniques available to them are, and that they know
114.
by gdp 17y ago
I'm with you on this one.
115.
by gdp 17y ago
Oh, duly noted. That wasn't obvious to me from my initial reading of the article. That said, that's certainly contrary to my experiences. Most smart people are suckers for interesting research, and if you're doing something interesting, p
116.
by gdp 17y ago
You're talking about programming and creating programs. That would be a really, really useless certification.
117.
by gdp 17y ago
You appear to have inferred incorrectly that I am talking about safety critical work. I am not. I'm talking about anything that people are expected to spend money on. The certification passes to the software, and then users are capable of
118.
by gdp 17y ago
No, hiring on the basis of a certification would be silly. Declining to hire on the basis of a lack of certification might not be. Here's a basic idea. It might be one of many: Software x has been developed in the following way (explain
119.
by gdp 17y ago
OK, you've fundamentally mis-represented what I've said. You're talking about programming - I'm talking about certification of software engineering . They are two separate-but-related concepts. A certification should not be "Joe knows t
120.
by gdp 17y ago
> And there will always be talented, passionate developers who don't test well or don't see the need to memorize something that Google could reveal in a single search or who just think that the certification process is bollocks. Any c

More ›