I dont undestand, why people think that its impossible to build a
secure smalltalk system.
Is smalltalk language not turing complete?
Otherwise, if its possible to build a secure system using other
language, why its impossible to do in smalltalk?

Isn't stating that 'we can build easily anything in smalltalk', goes
into controversy with 'we can't build a secure system in smalltalk'?


On 18 March 2010 11:47, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at angband.za.org> wrote:
> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Michael" == Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Michael> In SecureSqueak, direct invasive object access using
>> basicAt:put:,
>> Michael> at:put: and so forth will be disallowed.
>>
>> And that would require a VM change.
>>
>> Otherwise, I can just create a method that does the primitive.
>
> So #basicAt:put: etc. is the reason why, as Ralph put it, immutability is a
> _language_ feature and not simply part of a library?
>
> Or, to put it another way, if we want to _guarantee_ immutability we can't
> rely on ProtoObject/Object defining immutability because subclasses could
> override that behaviour? (Which would be breaking the
> programming-by-convention rule for immutability.)
>
> frank
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.