I don't understand what you are trying to convey. It appears like a deliberate red herring to try to distract from what I actually said. I personally use haskell, but you do not need to do so to get a complete guarantee against SQL injection. Nobody said anything about silver bullets or protecting against every security problem. I very clearly said SQL injection is a solved problem, in reply to someone claiming every single web app has SQL injection vulnerabilities in it and that any security researcher can easily sit down and exploit them, and the only way to deal with SQL injection is to be lucky over and over.
You are being too harsh (again). Whatever problems you deal with, whatever mistakes you make in your professional work, are also solved problems, using some technology that is unacceptable to you (probably for very good reasons).
You could have been informative and made your original point tactfully. Instead, you badmouthed a certain technology without even naming the stuff that was supposedly better. I'm a Haskell evangelist and agree with you 100%, and you came off like a jerk even to me.
I think perhaps we are operating with very different definitions of harsh. If your response is simply intended to be a poor attempt at criticizing my tone, you did not make that clear. Obviously such vacuous nonsense would not warrant a response.
Your assertion that whatever problems I deal with are solved problems is absolutely insane. Please, tell me how problems like interpreting customers requirements are "solved" and what technology I can use to ensure that all the code I write will 100% always match the users mental picture of what they wanted.
Criticizing the choice to deliberately create security holes for convenience is not "badmouthing", and "I'm offended" is not a productive response. It literally conveys no useful information at all.
