[14493] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Choosing an implementation language
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Enzo Michelangeli)
Sat Oct 4 14:50:30 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: "Enzo Michelangeli" <em@em.no-ip.com>
To: <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 09:50:14 +0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tyler Close" <tyler@waterken.com>
To: <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 4:31 AM
Subject: Choosing an implementation language
> 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'd like to see an implementation written in a language that is
memory-safe (I'm really sick of bugs related to buffer overflows) but
easily embeddable in C applications, such as Ocaml or SmartEiffel. They
seems to be also quite fast and memory-efficient, especially Ocaml (see
e.g. http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/ ).
Enzo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
