[14478] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Choosing an implementation language
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tyler Close)
Fri Oct 3 17:02:52 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:31:26 -0400
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: Tyler Close <tyler@waterken.com>
On Thursday 02 October 2003 09:21, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
> I was thinking of doing a C++ implentation with classes and
> templates and stuff. (By contrast OpenSSL is a C
> implementation). Anyone got any thoughts on that?
Given the nature of recent, and past, bugs discovered in the
OpenSSL implementation, it makes more sense to implement in a
memory-safe language, such as python, java or squeak. Using a VM
hosted language will limit the pool of possible users, but might
create a more loyal user base.
I know the squeak community <http://www.squeak.org/> does not have
SSL and would very much like to have it. An implementation of SSL
in squeak would also be of interest to the Squeak-E project,
related to the E project <http://www.erights.org/>.
Tyler
--
The union of REST and capability-based security:
http://www.waterken.com/dev/Web/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
