<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Igor Stasenko <<a href="mailto:siguctua@gmail.com">siguctua@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
2008/7/7 Jason Johnson <<a href="mailto:jason.johnson.081@gmail.com">jason.johnson.081@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">> On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Igor Stasenko <<a href="mailto:siguctua@gmail.com">siguctua@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> okay, let me rephrase it: trusted user and untrusted user.<br>
>> Do you still against distinction?<br>
><br>
> In the programming language: yes. It is up to the developer to know<br>
> the access needs of his software (e.g. are there parts that need to be<br>
> protected?) and write it accordingly.<br>
><br>
> The only way you need it in the language itself is if you are allowing<br>
> arbitrary clients to inject code into your running system, which I'm<br>
> against. In that case I think it's better to just expose APIs to<br>
> clients that they can call which you prove to be safe (like web<br>
> services).<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>Smalltalk is quite indifferent for these purposes, so i don't see any<br>
problem using same approach at any level.<br>
It is not in 'language itself' , i don't think that Gulik need to<br>
change the language to make things more secure.<br>
It's not a Java, after all, where by typing word 'private', or 'final'<br>
you getting false feeling of safety :)<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>Actually, I will need to change the language a bit. I'll need to add "private" methods and possible other Java-like features . I hope to do this without any changes to the language syntax.<br>
<br>Gulik.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg">http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg</a><br><a href="http://gulik.pbwiki.com/">http://gulik.pbwiki.com/</a>