No, that is 100% wrong.

The purpose of QA isn't to *find* bugs; the purpose of QA is to *verify* that *there are no bugs*.

If you are giving something to QA with unknown deficiencies, and expect them to find them for you, you should be looking for another line of work.

(Known deficiencies of a work-in-progress are a different story, of course...)

Code review is purposefully a politically loaded process which enables management to divide and conquer and keep wages down.

You must have an awfully dysfunctional management. On my current team, code reviews came about by demand from the engineers, not from management.

Re: anonymous code reviews, meh, that could be made to work, I guess, but I don't see the point -- I'd rather have a discussion in the open.

> Compared to a Silverlight solution, the JS player is 3.5 times larger (535kb vs 154kb), uses about 3.6 times as
> much CPU power (25% vs 7%), and has to have significant modifications to work in multiple browsers. Not really progress. ...compared to a Flash solution, the JS player is >100 times larger (a Flash version could be under, say, 4k, including UI, since the MP3 decoder is built in).

My 20-year-old dead-tree comics are still readable. (And yes, I still re-read the good ones.)

Will the same be true of the digital versions? Magic 8-Ball says, "Signs point to No".

Optional type annotations (a la ActionScript3) were considered for JavaScript in the ECMAScript4 standard, but the committee decided it didn't want to go in that direction.

See also http://www.masonchang.com/blog/2011/4/21/tamarin-on-llvm-more-numbers.html for a take on trying to use LLVM for ActionScript.

A guy did in fact transplant LLVM in place of Nanojit (in Tamarin rather than SpiderMonkey, but close enough):

http://www.masonchang.com/blog/2011/4/21/tamarin-on-llvm-more-numbers.html

And found that LLVM didn't really produce an overall win for this sort of code generation. LLVM is nice for ahead-of-time-compilation, but isn't a good fit for just-in-time.

Same is true of the Flash vuln -- it was patched by Adobe on March 21.

This isn't a remote exploit. It's a Flash file that was embedded in an Excel file that was emailed and opened on a local system.

Err... how did parent get modded "offtopic"? It's precisely ON topic in terms of a reply; a vulnerability that allows a jailbreak is no less a vulnerability that allows an exploit. They're both an "own the system" gambit.