From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-07-04T11:52:30-05:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:03802] Re: Ubiquitous Ruby

"clemensF" <ino-waiting@gmx.net> writes:

> > Dave Thomas:
> 
> > In terms of security, I agree there are issues here, but not
> > insurmountable ones. We'll need to involve crypto folks in this.
> 
> not neccessarily.  standard pgp-encryption would suffice, it's the
> "trusted source" which could be a problem, in the face of mirroring
> needs.

Isn't that vulnerable to man-in-the-middle, though? I'm not an expert
here, just guessing.

> > Part of my interest in this is a longer-term idea.
> did you check into limbo/inferno of bell-labs?  any oo-language fits into
> the frame you envision, but limbo has processes talk via channels of simple
> strong types like chars and ints, which scales well and is more concrete
> than ruby in this.

I've looked at it in the past, as was slightly disappointed that we've 
still back in the world of streams. I agree it is elegant, but it
doesn't really the capture the kind of future I see, where code and
data are mobile. Perhaps I missed the point here, but I have to
believe that the future is more dynamic than this.


Regards


Dave