[cap-talk] David Wagner's Google techtalk is now up!

[Valerio Bellizzomi]

On 13/12/2007, at 0.15, Mathieu Suen wrote:

>On Dec 12, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
>> On Dec 12, 2007 2:04 PM, Mathieu Suen <mathieusuen at yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 12, 2007, at 10:35 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 12, 2007 12:39 PM, Mathieu Suen <mathieusuen at yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks a lot for your answer.
>>>>> In fact I mess up with strong typing and static typing.
>>>>> I have an other question in mind:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we use Java Interface as Capability?
>>>>>
>>>>> Than for method instead of declaring a class for a return type we
>>>>> simply return an interface.
>>>>> And it is the same for all other things. We only declare variable
>>>>> with
>>>>> an Interace.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am also interest why you say that there are some reason to prefer
>>>>> static typing?
>>>>
>>>> One obvious reason to prefer static typing is that violations are
>>>> detected at compile time.
>>>
>>>
>>> What kind of violation?
>>>
>>> For me it seem that most kind of violation that static type detect at
>>> compile time is also detect when you test you software with
>>> dynamically type language.
>>
>> Only if I manage to actually run the offending piece of code. Do you
>> have 100% test coverage?
>
>Yes you are correct
>I don't really want to go an a Static vs. Dynamic type system debat.  
>Lot of people have done it before.


>http://cdsmith.twu.net/types.html

at "Fallacy: Static types imply type declarations": Programmers who lack
patience and discipline often turn away from statically typed languages.


>But can you tell me which security bugs that a static type language  
>can prevent that dynamicaly type system can't?

Most of the bugs that are hidden behind control-flow gaps.


val