From: Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@...>
Date: 2006-01-08T15:41:58+09:00
Subject: Re: Ideas on "Why Living Dangerous can be A Good Thing" in Ruby?

On 1/8/06, James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:

> > This of course, has many benefits, but the bottom line is that Java
> > was built with a security model to prevent things like this, while
> > ruby was built to be open from the ground up to facilitate this.
> >
>
> Prevent what? One can build twisty, loopy, self-modifying code in Java,
> too.  It's just painful; maybe that's part of The Plan.

Though that's funny, I really think it was part of the plan for Java. 
They made no attempt to make doing it convenient or useful (though
that can be said for a lot of Java things), which is part of the way
they can discourage developers from being 'wild and crazy'

> There is no inherent security from code that is too clever for its own
> good.

That's true.  We are really addressing the illusion of security.  Or
at least a superficial level of security.  I think a lot of people are
just scared by how damn convenient and common such practices are in
Ruby, even if their language is capable of doing similar things.