[justinpombrio]

That's what I'm calling capabilities at the application level (where you say "this .jar can't access the network"), rather than at the language level (where you say "this function wasn't given access to the network as an argument"). I don't think any widely known language has tried capabilities at the language level. (The language not widely known that does it is E.)

The real power will come when you can mix them. In one direction, that looks like `main()` not getting passed a `Network` object because the ".jar" wasn't granted network access. In the other direction, that looks like the system C library you invoked failing to access the network because when you invoked it from Java you failed to provide a `Network` object, so it was automatically sandboxed to not be able to access the network.

[tlavoie]

Have you looked at "Emily" language at all? Same person or two, their original paper isn't reachable at their linked URL, but is on the Wayback Machine. "How Emily Tamed the Caml" - https://web.archive.org/web/20221231184748/https://www.hpl.h...

Emily took the approach of restricting a subset of OCaml, which they were running on Windows machines. No idea how tough it would be to get it running on a modern version.

Also for OCaml, the MirageOS unikernel is neat - develop on Linux etc., then recompile configured as a virtual machine with only the drivers (network, filesystem) needed by that one app. - https://mirage.io/

[blibble]

> That's what I'm calling capabilities at the application level (where you say "this .jar can't access the network"), rather than at the language level (where you say "this function wasn't given access to the network as an argument")

it wasn't, it was done at the type and classloader level

have a read about SecurityManager