Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:12:10 -0400
From:      "Allen Smith" <easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu>
To:        Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, "Lee Crites (ASC)" <leec@adam.adonai.net>
Cc:        security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Translation to a safer language (Was: Projects to improve security)
Message-ID:  <9807212312.ZM12555@beatrice.rutgers.edu>
In-Reply-To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>  "Re: Translation to a safer language (Was: Projects to improve security)" (Jul 21,  8:50pm)
References:  <"Brett Glass <brett"@lariat.org>  <199807211859.MAA14931@lariat.lariat.org>  <199807220125.TAA21968@lariat.lariat.org>  <199807220250.UAA23367@lariat.lariat.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Jul 21,  8:50pm, Brett Glass (possibly) wrote:
> The question would be whether it would be efficient enough. Perl might
> drop back to near-interpreted speed if certain constructs were used.

Regarding this, I'd point out that the main thing slowing Perl down as
compared to C for most applications is the interpretation step - not
the running step. (I say most applications because Perl is a lot
easier to write efficient string stuff in than C.) In other words,
code based on Perl's code with the interpretation stuff removed is
likely to result in quite fast code indeed.

> Also, Perl isn't strongly typed, so it might not catch certain errors.

I can see this on strings vs integers/floats. Perl does have the
capability for function prototypes (at least in recent versions).

	-Allen

-- 
Allen Smith				easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu
	

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe security" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9807212312.ZM12555>