111
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

And a lot more bug prone. I'm just explaining the OP because people didn't get it. I'm not saying dynamic languages are bad. I'm saying they have different trade-offs.

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The problem with formal proofs for code is that it assumes the spec/requirements are complete and bug-free.

I find most bugs come from missed or misinterpreted requirements.

[-] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I have a feeling you are misunderstanding what is meant by "theorems for free" here. For example, one theorem that is proven by all safe Rust programs is that they don't have data races. That should always be a requirement for functional software. This is a more pragmatic type of automatic theorem proving that doesn't require a direct proof from the code author. The compiler does the proof for you. Otherwise the theorem would not be "free" as stated in OP.

this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
111 points (91.1% liked)

Programmer Humor

19187 readers
1139 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS