🚀 go-pugleaf

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". You don't need pointers
if you 1) have abstract identifiers for referencing objects that can be
dynamically created, 2) don't intend to access arrays of objects known to be
consecutively stored in memory, or 3) pretend that an object of one type is
really an object of another type. Pointers impose all kinds of constraints and
increase the possibility of programs whose behavior is not portable from one
environment ot another.

Having the ability to dereference addresses is not a security violation in
itself. I'm on a time-sharing system with 10 other people, writing code full
of pointers, some of whose dereferences sometimes go haywire.   Of course, it
is a consideration under current Windows systems.
--