[cap-talk] definition of the term "safe language"

[Mike Samuel]

2010/4/9 Sandro Magi <smagi at higherlogics.com>:
> On 2010-04-09, at 19:58, Mike Samuel <mikesamuel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I still disagree with the last assertion.
>> I agree with the first statement but a programming language is also a
>> tool.  And for any successful language there is a larger audience who
>> view it as a tool than who view it as a system of axioms.
>> And the proper names for a consistent set of axioms is "consistent,"
>> not "safe."
>
> I don't think I related consistency and safety in the above. Haven't
> thought about it much, but I wouldn't be surpised if there was some
> relationship.

You're right that you did not.  Sorry.  I was trying to understand how
a language being an axiomatic system implied that safety is/should be
based upon the languages specification and jumped to conclusions.

>> Would you agree with the statement "PHP is memory-safe yet there
>> exists no specification for it."
>
> PHP has only an interpreter spec, aka the implementation is the spec.
> Not a very rich spec since C code does not have very much semantic
> content, but it's a spec of sorts nonetheless.



> Sandro
> _______________________________________________
> cap-talk mailing list
> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk
>