mikidep@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 11 months agoWe did this to ourselveslemmy.worldimagemessage-square9fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1imageWe did this to ourselveslemmy.worldmikidep@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 11 months agomessage-square9fedilink
minus-squaretatterdemalion@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·11 months agoIt’s making fun of dynamic languages because rather than letting the compiler prove theorems about statically typed code, they… don’t.
minus-squaredeegeese@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·11 months agoTurns out getting working code is a lot cheaper and more useful than formally proven code.
minus-squareAnders429@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·11 months agoCheaper? Yes, I guess so, depending on how you measure cost. More useful? Absolutely disagree.
minus-squaredeegeese@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·11 months agoIndustry will pick functionality over verification every time.
minus-squareButtons@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·11 months agoIndustry will leak PII without consequence every week.
minus-squareDumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·11 months agoDynamic languages were invented by runtime error companies to sell more runtime errors.
It’s making fun of dynamic languages because rather than letting the compiler prove theorems about statically typed code, they… don’t.
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.
Dynamic languages were invented by runtime error companies to sell more runtime errors.