Secure Coding mailing list archives

Compilers


From: peter.amey at praxis-his.com (Peter Amey)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:29:44 -0000


-----Original Message-----
From: sc-l-bounces at securecoding.org 
[mailto:sc-l-bounces at securecoding.org] On Behalf Of ljknews
Sent: 02 January 2007 14:20
To: Secure Coding
Subject: Re: [SC-L] Compilers

At 2:18 PM +0000 1/2/07, Peter Amey wrote:
[snip]


We think so!  However, like everything else, it is how you 
use things 
that matter most.

How you use things may be an "essential" aspect, but so is 
the nature of "things".  Achieving the same quality by 
toggling the machine code into the front panel is only 
possible on a theoretical basis, and getting the same results 
with a long strand of limp spaghetti is just impossible.

Larry,

I don't think I was intending to disagree with you!  The right languages
/allow/ demonstrable secure coding.  Conversely, without them, secure
coding is reduced to a fairly weak coding standard level.  

Peter

P.S.  Please watch for the unfortunate word wrap in the URL of my
original post.  The broken link still works but goes to thw wrong place!




Current thread: