[Info-vax] OS implementation languages

[David Wade]

On 10/09/2023 14:03, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2023-09-10 02:54, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> But my discussion with Bill was not whether it was a good fit to
>> solve the problem but whether it was possible.
>>
>> Turing complete indicate possible.
> 
> Not really. The problem is not what the language is capable of, but what 
> problems it carries with it.
> 
> Yes. Any turing complete language can do any any other turing complete 
> language can do. On that I agree.
> 
> Does not mean that if language A provies a way of doing it with a lot of 
> safety built in, that language B also provides a way of doing it with a 
> lot of safety built in. Which was the problem with PHP.
> 
>> Turing complete does not indicate good fit for solving the
>> problem.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
>> Millions of web sites running PHP indicate that PHP is a good
>> fit for solving web security problems.
> 

As someone who manages a few web sites running PHP based content 
management systems, I feel the frequency with which I have to apply 
security fixes indicates the opposite.

I also haven't looked for a while, but when I did I found that much of 
the spam and many of the phishing attacks I receive were delivered via 
compromised web servers running PHP based


> That is a fallacy. Just because it is used by a lot of people does not 
> mean it's good in any sense of the word.
> 
> It's like the fly argument. Billions of flies think shit is good and 
> testy. Therefore you should then obviously also think shit is...

+1

> 
>    Johnny
> 

Dave