Choosing an implementation language

Scott Guthery sguthery at mobile-mind.com
Fri Oct 3 17:35:16 EDT 2003


Ah, the joys of diversity.  Implementations
of all your favorite protocols in all your
favorite programming languages by all your
favorite programmers in all your favorite
countries on all your favorite operating
systems for all your favorite chips.  

Continuous debugging certainly is the path 
to secure computing.

Cheers, Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler Close [mailto:tyler at waterken.com]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 4:31 PM
To: cryptography at metzdowd.com
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 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 at metzdowd.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com



More information about the cryptography mailing list