RE: [Owasp-input-api-developers] language choice, design doc

[Matt W. <wi...@ce...>]

On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 17:32, Christopher Todd wrote:
[...]
> > Our thinking is that it'll be much easier for us to
> > be conscious of cross-language development problems if we force
> > ourselves to develop for at least 2 very different languages right off
> > the bat.
> 
> Makes sense to me, so long as everyone goes into this understanding that one
> of our goals is to be flexible and try to work out these issues.  I think
> our discussion about the testing tool/framework is a good example of how we
> all have different biases, *which is a Good Thing*, but to succeed, we all
> need to understand that the Perl folks have it right in that "There is more
> than one way to do it."  :-)
> 
> > Current thinking is that we might use one of the following:
> >
> > 	* PHP
> > 	* Python
> > 	* Perl
> > 	* C
> 
> I would argue for Perl.  It's popular, very different from Java, and we have
> Perl developers on this list.

Perl or PHP, if we want to take a "popular" route.  IMO PHP developers
are in much more need of this -- at least the perl developers have -t.

That being said, I think the PHP version will be good for gauging how
well the generally [security] clueless majority will accept this.

As far as C, I agree with Nik that its not used very much and it will be
a lot more difficult to implement.  Personally, I feel anyone still
using C, at least for frontends, is a masochist.  No reason for that
kind of power (and danger!) to be used for a web app.

Python itself should be an easy jump from the Java, perl or python
routes -- I don't think it will be very difficult to implement it in
python.

-matt

-- 
Matthew Wirges
Developer, CERIAS Incident Response Database
wi...@ce...
Credo quia absurdum est.