4 ms·
> Your TLA+ comment isn't relevant to this discussion and seems to only promote TLA+. pron has this habit of being negative and dismissive towards functional p
by throwaway999888 11y ago
> Your TLA+ comment isn't relevant to this discussion and seems to only promote TLA+.
pron has this habit of being negative and dismissive towards functional programming and related things, recommending non-FP alternatives instead. Which is fine, only that sometimes he's too trigger happy and just gives unsolicited advice without any build up or with weak topical relevance. Like here.
- pron 11y agoI am not dismissive towards Coq (how can anyone be?), and my advice is neither less solicited nor less relevant than many other HN comments. But you are right that I sometimes try to correct what I see as a (strange) imbalance here on HN (which reflects neither the prevailing opinions in academia nor in the industry) regarding PFP and type theory. People unfamiliar with the topic might get the impression that PFP+type-theory is either the only or the most prevalent technique for software verification (or software correctness in general), while neither is the case. In exchange, I get to be the lucky target of various ad hominem attacks, so I guess I've earned my right to speak up :)
- throwaway999888 11y agoThe phrase "ad hominem" has become really watered-out.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- nickpsecurity 11y agoI noticed along with no supporting evidence presented in relevancy for this topic. Hence my comment. ;)