Re: Various Language Architecture Questions

[David Emery <demery@cox.net>]

Part of the goal for any modern protocol stack should be type safety, including preventing array bounds overrunning.  For what it's worth, I wrote a significant subset of TCP using SPARK as part of a IR&D project in applying SPARK/formal methods.  With a little bit of care and attention, there should be little or no performance hit for A LOT of safety/security.  The parts I couldn't do in SPARK (such as asynchronous transfer of control to implement TCP timeouts) were done in Ada95.  The Ada95 was wrapped in C to support the JNI interface for the test/demonstration code that invoked the protocol stack.  We called the result (Java calling C calling Ada95 calling SPARK) the "SPARK Sandwich"...

The core concern is at boundries of the protocol layer, where you move from byte sequences to packets, and then to more 'semantically knowledgeable' data.  

		dave

Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> frankgerlach@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> I am contemplating to create a new language, which is supposed to be as
>> fast as C++, but as safe as Java.
> 
> 
> Your thinking is very low-level. With a well designed language, pointers 
> and type conversions are far rarer than in C/++. When you have been 
> exposed to such a language well enough to use it as intended, then you 
> may be ready to think about designing a language of your own.
>