Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")

At 6:38 PM 4/30/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>Timothy C. May writes:
>> SCRUFFIES AND NEATS IN SECURITY
>>
>> The "security neat" believes in applying rigor to security. Machines and
>> languages should be "provably secure." (Better yet, machines should be
>> "provably correct," a la Viper, and operating systems and languages should
>> produce provably correct code.)
>
>Don't take this the wrong way, Tim, but you have totally
>misinterpreted the position many of us who dislike Java take. You
>completely mischaracterize our attitude.


Perry, that essay was, as I said, sent out before it was finished. I did
not even get to the part I was planning about classifying the Java
supporters/detractors as either scruffies or neats!

Now, while you may have _anticipated_ the point I was going to make in the
completed essay, you cannot say I have "mischaracterized" anyone's attitude
at this point!

Unless you have a source of thiotimoline I'm not aware of.

--Tim


Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May writes:
> At 6:38 PM 4/30/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >Timothy C. May writes:
> >> SCRUFFIES AND NEATS IN SECURITY
> >>
> >> The "security neat" believes in applying rigor to security. Machines and
> >> languages should be "provably secure." (Better yet, machines should be
> >> "provably correct," a la Viper, and operating systems and languages should
> >> produce provably correct code.)
> >
> >Don't take this the wrong way, Tim, but you have totally
> >misinterpreted the position many of us who dislike Java take. You
> >completely mischaracterize our attitude.
> 
> Perry, that essay was, as I said, sent out before it was finished.
[...]
> Now, while you may have _anticipated_ the point I was going to make in the
> completed essay, you cannot say I have "mischaracterized" anyone's attitude
> at this point!

I could only respond to the statments you made, not the ones you could
have made.

In any case, I'm not sure that there is such a thing either as a
"Security Scruffy" or a "Security Neat" in the argument about Java;
the breakdown in opinions occurs along very different lines.

Perry