home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca!not-for-mail
- From: c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.java
- Subject: Re: Relative Speed of Perl vs. Tcl vs. C
- Date: 16 Feb 1996 18:15:25 -0800
- Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
- Message-ID: <4g3dntINNna1@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- References: <4e3a2u$eoa@wcap.centerline.com> <4flm87$m0c@csnews.cs.colorado.edu> <4fnus0$qrc@hades.rz.uni-sb.de> <4fpi0k$i6v@ns2.ryerson.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca
-
- In article <4fpi0k$i6v@ns2.ryerson.ca>,
- Al Aab - CNED/W94 <aaab@acs.ryerson.ca> wrote:
- >JAVA's lack of pointers is intentional.
- >Security.
-
- I don't think so. Try "portability" and "abstraction". You don't need pointers
- if you 1) have abstract identifiers for referencing objects that can be
- dynamically created, 2) don't intend to access arrays of objects known to be
- consecutively stored in memory, or 3) pretend that an object of one type is
- really an object of another type. Pointers impose all kinds of constraints and
- increase the possibility of programs whose behavior is not portable from one
- environment ot another.
-
- Having the ability to dereference addresses is not a security violation in
- itself. I'm on a time-sharing system with 10 other people, writing code full
- of pointers, some of whose dereferences sometimes go haywire. Of course, it
- is a consideration under current Windows systems.
- --
-
-