🚀 go-pugleaf

c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku) writes:
> 
> In article <4fpi0k$i6v@ns2.ryerson.ca>,
> Al Aab - CNED/W94 <aaab@acs.ryerson.ca> wrote:
>  >JAVA's lack of pointers is intentional.
>  >Security.
>
> I don't think so. Try "portability" and "abstraction".

Well, you're right that security isn't the only reason pointers (in the
C sense) aren't in Java, but you're wrong in thinking it's not an important
reason.  The carefully constrained use of pointers in Java is an important
part of Java's characteristic *safety* (as opposed to security).  Without
pointer arithmetic, you can't walk off the end of an array (bypassing Java's
bounds checking) or redirect a pointer arbitrarily to point to some completely
different object (bypassing Java's type rules).  That kind of safety is 
crucial to a secure language, because it permits thorough analysis of the
language to identify possibly dangerous features.

Similar reasoning also applies to Java's garbage collection.  In terms of
security, GC is important not because it prevents memory leaks, but because
it prevents dangling references.

-- 
---glv