simple modules

Brendan Eich brendan at
Tue Feb 2 12:40:39 PST 2010

On Feb 2, 2010, at 12:05 PM, ihab.awad at wrote:

> I think the point you are making is that it is possible to *create* a
> new Context that has no, or attenuated, access to the "fs" module.
> That's fine, but then we move to the arguments about the Turing tarpit
> presented to programmers wishing to work in a fine-grained secure
> manner.

No, we do not fall into the tarpit.

The subset language can provide only the authority-free modules (Sam  
just replied saying this too). It simply can't be the full language,  
or the language embedded in <script type="application/javascript"> --  
but it could be the language embedded in <script type="application/ 
ecmascript;version=secure"> or ...application/ses or whatever.

The totalizing style of arguing whereby if you don't start from ocap  
primitives and only those primitives, you cannot reach you desired  
outcomes, is not helpful. There are many ways to skin the dinosaur and  
not fall into the Turing tarpit.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list