[cap-talk] Re: [e-lang] Python; was JavaScript style reminiscent of E

David Hopwood david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk
Thu Apr 14 20:27:18 EDT 2005

Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, David Hopwood wrote:
>>The moral is: If Javascript had a community of people using it as an
>>object capability language (or even just as an ordinary object-functional
>>language), problems with its semantics in that context would get noticed
>>and fixed. Since there is no such community, these problems don't get
>>fixed (and in fact they get made worse by committees trying to turn
>>ECMAscript into a class-based language). You can't rely on a language
>>providing capability-secure semantics "by accident", it has to be by
> It's basically a similar situation with Python.  Python is very close
> to being capable of being used as a capability-secure language, but
> its design does not *encourage* that style of use.  Conventional Python
> style is not capability-secure and there is no community of people
> who are trying to use it that way.

OTOH, Python's user community is large enough that there is probably a
significant subset of it who would be interested in a capability-secure
version. Any Python code ported to this version would need thorough
security review, but it would still be useful, I think.

David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>

More information about the cap-talk mailing list