Re: lisp and security
From: Barry Margolin (barmar_at_alum.mit.edu)
Date: 02/25/04
- Next message: David Steuber: "Re: Advantages of Lisp?"
- Previous message: Kenny Tilton: "Re: <pop!> Cello for Linux"
- In reply to: Erann Gat: "Re: lisp and security"
- Next in thread: Vladimir Sedach: "Re: lisp and security"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:48:28 -0500
In article <gNOSPAMat-2402042318270001@192.168.1.52>,
gNOSPAMat@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote:
> In article <barmar-E5B54B.00092825022004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>, Barry
> Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <gNOSPAMat-2402041623410001@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> > gNOSPAMat@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote:
> >
> > > > And how this differs from someone blindly using the DOM model of
> XML, which
> > > > essentially sucks in the entire tree into memory, thereby risking
> the exact
> > > > same problem, eludes me.
> > >
> > > It doesn't. Just because other approaches may encounter the same problem
> > > doesn't mean it's not a problem.
> >
> > Go back to the original post. The problem was raised in a discussion
> > about using Lisp S-Expressions versus XML, and the claim was that this
> > is one of the reasons not to use Lisp. If both approaches share a
> > security failing, then it's irrelevant in the comparison.
>
> To paraphrase Will, how this differs from what I said eludes me.
It might be a problem, but it's not the problem we're discussing.
-- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
- Next message: David Steuber: "Re: Advantages of Lisp?"
- Previous message: Kenny Tilton: "Re: <pop!> Cello for Linux"
- In reply to: Erann Gat: "Re: lisp and security"
- Next in thread: Vladimir Sedach: "Re: lisp and security"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
