On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:28:17AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
} After my first day back at my University, I was quickly reminded that
} not everyone in the world embraces the "You'll shoot your eye out"
} nature of Ruby as much as we all do.  I just started a course on
} object oriented design in C++ and naturally the issues of security
} came up as soon as the fact that I had been working in Ruby had been
} mentioned.
} 
} Rather than spending an hour arguing for why Ruby's openness makes
} *my* life easier, I decided that i'd do a little research and digging
} around and then form an O'Reilly blog article on the topic.  As part
} of that research, I'm asking the RubyTalk community for some well
} founded opinions that make the case for dynamicity and openness,
} particularly the meta-programming tricks many of us have become
} acquainted with.
[...]

I'm not clear on what openness we're talking about. Do you mean one or more
of the following:

1) all the source code of an app is visible and can be scanned for
   vulnerabilities

2) the source code for the interpreter is available and can be scanned for
   vulnerabilities

3) duck typing allows unintended objects to be used in unintended ways

4) the ability to add/replace methods in existing classes allows library
   internals to be inspected or modified

} Thanks
} -Greg
--Greg