• tatterdemalion@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s making fun of dynamic languages because rather than letting the compiler prove theorems about statically typed code, they… don’t.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Turns out getting working code is a lot cheaper and more useful than formally proven code.

            • mikidep@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Industry will choose not to verify that your function does not produce NullPointerException wasting hours of the client’s work, because in order to do that they would have to have actual requirements for software developers, and in order to do that they would have to 1 - have the managers be actually technically literate, and 2 - pay the developers properly That’s it. That’s the theorems. The “formal verification” we’re talking about here are those of the likes of “this value is a damn integer”, or as you could interpret it “your code is not stupidly broken”.

              To be clear, I’m not writing this big comment for you, I know you’re trolling or whatever you’re into, I’m writing this to inform other readers. ✌🏻