>>49
setuid to who? Certainly not root.
You can contort the flow of control arbitrarily within any loop, whereas map, filter and fold will always do the same thing by themselves, and that's the point.
So the point is to do more work than necessary, out of some pointless desire for "elegance" or something? With a loop, you can start and end at any point in the array, the points which actually need processing.
>>56 see
>>47
>>59
You can configure PHP with
very fine control over what functions are allowed, the maximum amount of time and memory, etc. This has nothing to do with "web application security", as a host you usually don't care if your users' sites get hacked since that's their fault, but you don't want that to down the server for everyone else. How are you going to do things like disable backticks (makes it too easy to spawn additional processes) without recompiling Perl, not to mention parsing itself is Touring-complete so even an analyser that tries to parse the scripts and strip out disallowed features would not be guaranteed to terminate! Perl was designed as a "glue language" which is why these things are easy to do, and hard to manage when you
don't want your users using them. The same issue applies to all the other general-purpose scripting languages that got used for generating web pages.
>>60
Some C and C++ compilers do TCO as well. You seem to be assuming that ALL calls are going to be tail ones, when the exact opposite is usually the case. You smug lisp weenies always bring up TCO like it's the ultimate solution to everything --- and in some ways it is, since the language
requires it for any nontrivial code to work! But if you ask me, needing an
optimisation for it to be possible to do anything useful with the language at all is a big FAIL.
"Lisp is like a loli imouto. Cute and fun to play with, but you wouldn't want to ask her to do any heavy lifting."