From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] EROS, Vapour
In-Reply-To: <3B8FF174.B3795343@null.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109031116170.25593-100000@snaresland.acl.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Mon,  3 Sep 2001 11:17:24 -0600
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e8af1bb6-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:

> Eyal Lotem wrote:
> > The whole *point* behind Vapour is that it uses a safe language, rather
> > than damage-prevention hardware protection, ...
> > A serious advantage of Vapour for example, is since it doesn't reuqire
> > hardware protection, ...
>
> ? How on Earth can Vapour tell whether or not an access to e.g. serial
> port #0 is "safe"?
>

And why doesn't anybody ever seem to know that Burroughs plowed this
furrow for 25 years with no real good effect.

It's always fun when a user program brings down a mainframe due to a
compiler bug ...

ron