From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA09337; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:55:10 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA08930 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:55:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.83]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7UEt7D21439 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:55:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82]) by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA08452; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA06422; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:49:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (MLIN.MIT.EDU [18.194.0.95]) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA13470; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:49:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Q: safe language From: Mike Lin To: Vitaly Lugovsky Cc: J Farrand , David Frese , SooHyoung Oh , Caml-list In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.5 Date: 30 Aug 2002 10:55:56 -0400 Message-Id: <1030719358.1293.3589.camel@mlin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > Ok, fixed. But I don't see any difference between segfault and NIL passed > as file descriptor. Program fails - and it does not matter, was it "low > level" fault or unhandled exception or uncorrect behaviour. It makes a big difference if you're running in a realtime system with a shared memory model. > Okee. Lisp execution environment is safe. Java execution environment is > safe. C execution environment could be safe. But C is not a safe language, > as well as Java and Lisp. The meaning of "safe" is completely nebulous here. Type safety is provided very well by OCaml. But then we have things like # max_int;; - : int = 1073741823 # max_int + 1;; - : int = -1073741824 Obvious performance and practicality concerns preclude checking the bounds on every addition operation. Nonetheless, this could without much stretch of the imagination be called "unsafe". -Mike ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners