mikidep@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 year agoWe did this to ourselveslemmy.worldimagemessage-square9fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1imageWe did this to ourselveslemmy.worldmikidep@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 year agomessage-square9fedilink
minus-squaretatterdemalion@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 year agoIt’s making fun of dynamic languages because rather than letting the compiler prove theorems about statically typed code, they… don’t.
minus-squareDumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 year agoDynamic languages were invented by runtime error companies to sell more runtime errors.
minus-squaredeegeese@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 year agoTurns out getting working code is a lot cheaper and more useful than formally proven code.
minus-squareAnders429@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 year agoCheaper? Yes, I guess so, depending on how you measure cost. More useful? Absolutely disagree.
minus-squaredeegeese@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 year agoIndustry will pick functionality over verification every time.
minus-squareButtons@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoIndustry will leak PII without consequence every week.
What
It’s making fun of dynamic languages because rather than letting the compiler prove theorems about statically typed code, they… don’t.
Dynamic languages were invented by runtime error companies to sell more runtime errors.
Turns out getting working code is a lot cheaper and more useful than formally proven code.
Cheaper? Yes, I guess so, depending on how you measure cost. More useful? Absolutely disagree.
Industry will pick functionality over verification every time.
Industry will leak PII without consequence every week.