mikidep@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 2 years agoWe did this to ourselveslemmy.worldimagemessage-square9fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1imageWe did this to ourselveslemmy.worldmikidep@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 2 years agomessage-square9fedilink
minus-squaretatterdemalion@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 years 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-up1·2 years agoDynamic languages were invented by runtime error companies to sell more runtime errors.
minus-squaredeegeese@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·2 years agoTurns out getting working code is a lot cheaper and more useful than formally proven code.
minus-squareAnders429@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·2 years agoCheaper? Yes, I guess so, depending on how you measure cost. More useful? Absolutely disagree.
minus-squaredeegeese@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·2 years agoIndustry will pick functionality over verification every time.
minus-squareButtons@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 years agoIndustry will leak PII without consequence every week.
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.