4 ms·
And you are falling prey to the Nirvana fallacy [1]. Yes, we will never be able to prove that a program is 100% correct but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pref
by incepted 11y ago
And you are falling prey to the Nirvana fallacy [1].
Yes, we will never be able to prove that a program is 100% correct but that doesn't mean we shouldn't prefer solutions that bring that number up (statically typed languages) over solutions that don't (dynamically typed languages).
Just because you can't do something perfectly doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do it as best you can.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
- yogthos 11y agoI'm saying that you have to actually demonstrate that additional formalism adds value before you start claiming that it does.
- Turing_Machine 11y agoYes. Real-world programming is an entirely different thing from academic research. In the real world, it may well be the case that while you're screwing around with a baroque type system, your competition has iterated three or four times and your milkshake has been drunk.