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-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.
minus-squareDumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 year 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.