[dcohenp]

I'm sorry, but this line of argument is not even wrong as it relates to the entire modern infosec field, which is founded on the fact that there is no such thing as "100% security"; that is why concepts such as "threat models" and "defense in depth" exist.

Also, proving a program "correct" (for some definition of correctness that presumably includes "secure") is undecidable, ergo there cannot be such a thing as a "100% secure language". No, not even Erlang, nor Haskell, nor anything which is remotely close to Turing-complete. So all we can do is, in fact, decrease the attack surface.

[codygman]

> No, not even Erlang, nor Haskell, nor anything which is remotely close to Turing-complete. So all we can do is, in fact, decrease the attack surface.

You often don't even need Turing completeness.