Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, fin_81, you wrote: KV>> And what here variants?. _> you Rajsa with the theorem (I do not know it and I do not understand) everywhere climb. To explain? I am not simple so I climb, that is why that just she and explains, whence undertake mentioned above an exponent. _> variants here such - we smile and we wave. _> it in normal languages. And in a case with JS - we neigh, as abnormal and desperately we gesticulate

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: _>> You Rajsa with the theorem (I do not know it and I do not understand) everywhere climb. KV> to explain? I am not simple so I climb, that is why that just she and explains, whence undertake mentioned above an exponent. If exhibitors, it already a theorem refutation climb. _>> variants here such - we smile and we wave. _>> KV> it in normal languages. And in a case with JS - we neigh, how abnormal and desperately we gesticulate Normal language is, that which not tjuring-full?

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, fin_81, you wrote: _> Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV>> to Explain? I am not simple so I climb, that is why that just she and explains, whence undertake mentioned above an exponent. _> if exhibitors, it already a theorem refutation climb. Certainly is not present) As we cannot analyze something, equivalent to the machine of Turing, we should reduce it something to a computational model of the smaller order. Generally it is possible, through the description of all possible configurations  and passages in between in the form of the finite state machine. However, the number of states in it will be infinite for the account of infinity of tape  and finite such automatic machine will not be (differently it really would refute the theorem), hence, we should approximate  to a type which allows to come to finite (and reasonable) to number of states of the automatic machine describing it. In practice it expresses in the restriction of number of iterations of cycles mentioned above with unknown variables in their invariants, restriction of lengths of lines, arrays, the storage accessible round pointers, etc. And the number of states of the received automatic machine grows on an exhibitor from a polynomial which variables are limits of approximation of the initial program. And, as it is necessary for analyzer to sort out hardly less, than all these states, we and receive EXPTIME its operations. KV>> it in normal languages. And in a case with JS - we neigh, how abnormal and desperately we gesticulate _> Normal language is, that which not tjuring-full? It is possible and so. For example rules  in aircraft and astronautics (https://yurichev.com/mirrors/C/JPL_Codi … dard_C.pdf) just also describe how to make the code not so Turing complete, at least in  the part. In the general case, normal language is what possesses the abstractions shifting responsibility for approximation of the code from the analyzer on the developer, writing this code. Strict static typification is one of such abstractions. As well as pure functions with lazy calculations and dependent types (it gave the chance births of languages Coq, Idris, Agda, F *, allowing formally to prove at least special cases of properties of programs).

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, neFormal, you wrote: F> it will be very lonely  because very few people understands safety problems. , time  did not take place, we try to consider it in philosophy that-whether

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, fin_81, you wrote: _> For js is different  for construction of types. Can it is necessary sharpen under them analyzers? In practice and do, at least from optimization reasons. There is no sense each time to fail the interpreter in giblets  if it it is possible to count all once (and with the assistance of the person-> i.e. is more effective). However there, where there is an unknown person  or where it is not possible to recognize known, the problems described by me anyway begin. _> and crude js hardly where it is used for creation counting for something. Now it is still used in a web hardly less, than everywhere. Unfortunately

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: A>> Then at what here it is is specific JS? There is a subset of languages to which it is not applicable (more likely very restrictedly the described approach to the safety analysis is applicable). KV> BTW is a unique approach to the analysis which can yield a little full results, sufficient for the analysis of security of the code. There are its variations connected to specific performance of insignificant code locations, instead of their abstract interpretation, but it is faster from area of optimization of the initiating approach. Nevertheless, how many there would be no such approaches, the given approach is a little suitable for a certain class of languages. It simply reality. Whether it is possible to draw an output, what with this set of languages something not so? KV> And JS here thus that monkey-patching in other dynamic languages __ to be in the code (and, as a rule, it is not welcomed), and in JS it is a basis of the type system implemented in language, i.e. __ to be and consequently practically always is. What means? KV> well and rules of interpretation of separate idioms of language together with implicit type conversions which the analyzer is obliged to support and thanks to which, became possible existence JSFuck - as though slightly select JS among other (behind an exception, unless, PHP). Implicit conversions are accurately described: normal algorithms without any unexpectedness. In what here a problem? Than it differs from any language with an overload of operators, for example?

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, anonymous, you wrote: A> Nevertheless, how many there would be no such approaches, the given approach is a little suitable for a certain class of languages. It simply reality. Whether it is possible to draw an output, what with this set of languages something not so? Dynamic typification. A> implicit conversions are accurately described: normal algorithms without any unexpectedness. In what here a problem? Than it differs from any language with an overload of operators, for example? That that the overload and implicit type conversions exist only in the source code. After the typification phase transited all overloads are replaced with specific calls and instead of all implicit conversions interpose explicit calls of functions which transform one type to another. Thus on complexity of the analysis it is all influences no more than simply function invocation.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> Nemerle with Scala - will be silent horror because of the macroes bringing under the abstract interpretation not simply type system, and all components of semantic basis of language Though if to eliminate macroes from  the analysis and to analyze code already received after their working off then it is finite .... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, WolfHound, you wrote: A>> Nevertheless, how many there would be no such approaches, the given approach is a little suitable for a certain class of languages. It simply reality. Whether it is possible to draw an output, what with this set of languages something not so? WH> Dynamic typification. What? A>> Implicit conversions are accurately described: normal algorithms without any unexpectedness. In what here a problem? Than it differs from any language with an overload of operators, for example? WH> That that the overload and implicit type conversions exist only in the source code. After the typification phase transited all overloads are replaced with specific calls and instead of all implicit conversions interpose explicit calls of functions which transform one type to another. Thus on complexity of the analysis it is all influences no more than simply function invocation. In all dynamic languages it not so. JS here it is selected with nothing.

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> And Go, by the way, too. And here to analyze Nemerle with Scala - will be silent horror because of the macroes bringing under the abstract interpretation not simply type system, and all components of semantic basis of language:D macroes work For them at a compilation stage. All that it is necessary to wait it while all macroes will be uncovered and to analyze result. I to tell the truth at all do not understand sense of the analysis of source codes. For in a case with CLR and Java it is possible simply  to analyze. Then at once receive also the analyzer for Nemerle and Scala. And it is possible to show errors under the debug information.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> It is possible and so. For example rules  in aircraft and astronautics (https://yurichev.com/mirrors/C/JPL_Codi … dard_C.pdf) just also describe how to make the code not so Turing complete, at least in  the part. In the general case, normal language is what possesses the abstractions shifting responsibility for approximation of the code from the analyzer on the developer, writing this code. Strict static typification is one of such abstractions. As well as pure functions with lazy calculations and dependent types (it gave the chance births of languages Coq, Idris, Agda, F *, allowing formally to prove at least special cases of properties of programs). KV> Coq, Idris, Agda, F* I Ask to interpose into this list Ada SPARK (2014) which does the same, but unlike Agdy everyone there can be used normal developers without level PhD on computer science. Also the first decade is used any more. And IDE to it is.

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, Glory, you wrote: I Ask to interpose into this list Ada SPARK (2014) which does the same, but unlike Agdy everyone there can be used normal developers without level PhD on computer science. Also the first decade is used any more. And IDE to it is. Here it is fair, from contained section ` Subprogram Contracts ` in them  - it is direct pleasure tears on eyes were screwed

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, WolfHound, you wrote: WH> I to tell the truth at all do not understand sense of the analysis of source codes. For in a case with CLR and Java it is possible simply  to analyze. It is possible also much easier the analysis of source codes. Till now I remember, for example, as the Sense of the analysis of source codes was necessary to be perverted with implementation of support of closings in our interpreter C# there is only one: analysis possibility (at least securities) not collected projects - very frequent case which many clients demand.

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, anonymous, you wrote: KV>> BTW is a unique approach to the analysis which can yield a little full results, sufficient for the analysis of security of the code. There are its variations connected to specific performance of insignificant code locations, instead of their abstract interpretation, but it is faster from area of optimization of the initiating approach. A> nevertheless, how many there would be no such approaches, the given approach is a little suitable for a certain class of languages. It simply reality. Whether it is possible to draw an output, what with this set of languages something not so? Other approaches - are applicable in even smaller levels. KV>> and JS here thus that monkey-patching in other dynamic languages __ to be in the code (and, as a rule, it is not welcomed), and in JS it is a basis of the type system implemented in language, i.e. __ to be and consequently practically always is. A> that means? In JS the type is constructed imperatively in this connection the contract implemented by it cannot be deduced, without fulfilling (or at least abstractly interpreting) thus  the code. In others, even dynamic languages, at least partially, types probably to describe it is declarative and consequently the output of contracts implemented by these parts does not demand performance/interpretation of the analysable code. A> implicit conversions are accurately described: normal algorithms without any unexpectedness. In what here a problem? Than it differs from any language with an overload of operators, for example? Than it differs from an overload, already answered Wolfhound. And about accurately described unexpectedness so for pair operators JS even there is a well-known table, it yes. Simply one more member in that polynomial from which then happens EXPTIME at the code analysis. Only here in JS these members it turns out painfully , in comparison with other languages.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> analysis possibility (at least securities) not collected projects - very frequent case which many clients demand. What for???

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> Here it is fair, from contained section ` Subprogram Contracts ` in them  - it is direct pleasure tears on eyes were screwed And here it saw? Dafny the proof of sorting by a choice. The author: WolfHound Date: 29.04.16 https://github.com/Microsoft/dafny... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV>>> to Explain? I am not simple so I climb, that is why that just she and explains, whence undertake mentioned above an exponent. _>> if exhibitors, it already a theorem refutation climb. KV>... Generally it is possible... More correctly so." In a specific special case it is possible ". Generally we rest against the theorem of Rajsa. KV>>> It in normal languages. And in a case with JS - we neigh, how abnormal and desperately we gesticulate _>> Normal language is, that which not tjuring-full? KV> it is possible and so. For example rules  in aircraft and astronautics (https://yurichev.com/mirrors/C/JPL_Codi … dard_C.pdf) just also describe how to make the code not so Turing complete, at least in  the part. In the general case, normal language is what possesses the abstractions shifting responsibility for approximation of the code from the analyzer on the developer, writing this code. Strict static typification is one of such abstractions. As well as pure functions with lazy calculations and dependent types (it gave the chance births of languages Coq, Idris, Agda, F *, allowing formally to prove at least special cases of properties of programs). Abstraction, approximation, responsibility,"not so Turing complete". . Well  characteristics, however. And if to return to a subject. If you on  try to recover the source code on  why on crude js not to try to recover an initial gwt-code, or the code using js-frejmvork with which easier to work? Why , php it turns out to analyze, and js is not present?

Re: And still slightly about [] JS

Hello, fin_81, you wrote: _> is more correct so. _> "In a specific special case it is possible". _> Generally we rest against the theorem of Rajsa. It agree. Here only recognition of these special cases rests against the same theorem _> Abstraction, approximation, responsibility, "not so Turing complete"... Well  characteristics, however. First two are not characteristics. And in remaining - well, with algorithmically incapable of solution tasks always so _> And if to return to a subject. If you on  try to recover the source code on  why on crude js not to try to recover an initial gwt-code, or the code using js-frejmvork with which easier to work? Why , php it turns out to analyze, and js is not present? I not  that js it is impossible to analyze. It turns out, but it is more difficult, in comparison with other languages, because of  amounts of "freedom levels", admitted by language. If the js-code has been generated on more high-level code and if it probably to recover it certainly facilitates the task. More precisely, transfers a part of complexity from the analysis task, on the translation task to high-level representation.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>