[cap-talk] definition of the term "safe language"
mikesamuel at gmail.com
Thu Apr 8 14:41:04 PDT 2010
2010/4/8 Sandro Magi <naasking at higherlogics.com>:
> On 08/04/2010 11:38 AM, Mike Samuel wrote:
>> Floating point arithmetic in java is an abstraction over a host of
>> different register size fp operations that is inconsistently exposed
>> as described earlier. Joe-E does not require all code be marked
>> strictfp, so it is unsafe w.r.t. that abstraction yet is an ocap
> This was an intentional decision to provide an alternate semantics to
> floating point . Differing semantics does not imply a safety violation.
Yes. And a reasonable decision. But that is beside the point.
C made a quite intentional decision to not be a memory safe language.
That a language has an intentionally weak abstraction does not make
the language safe according to the definition in the original post.
In the case of java floating point, and C memory, the burden of
maintaining the abstraction rests on the programmer, not the compiler
or runtime implementor. It is not a safe language since the
programmer has to be very careful around certain abstractions.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strictfp
> cap-talk mailing list
> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
More information about the cap-talk