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