[cap-talk] "Managed code"

[Sandro Magi]

David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> Matej Kosik wrote:
>> Can a language be "memory safe" and not to be "managed". Can a language
>> be "managed" and not to be "memory safe"?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_safety
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_code
> 
> There's no reason to use the term "managed code" outside the context of
> .NET. Please don't use it as a synonym for either memory-safe code or code
> running under a VM; that would be a needless duplication of perfectly
> good existing terminology. The Wikipedia article is wrong to do so.

What I've read of MS's documentation on managed code seemed pretty
consistent, though they never outright define "managed code". They use
it as an equivalent for memory safe and type safe code executed by the
VM. The managed code term is primarily useful when discussing the FFI,
where managed vs. unmanaged is a useful distinction for understanding
how P/Invoke marshals data.

I don't think there's a term that so accurately captures this
distinction, as simple memory safety or VM bytecode is insufficient.

Sandro