3 ms·

> Computer Science: Computability, Formal Specification, Correctness Proofs, Network Analysis, OS Paging/Scheduling, Queueing Theory, Language Syntax/Semantics,

by knocte 9y ago

> Computer Science: Computability, Formal Specification, Correctness Proofs, Network Analysis, OS Paging/Scheduling, Queueing Theory, Language Syntax/Semantics, Automatic Programming, Complexity, Algorithms, Cryptography, Compilers. It's interesting/funny that when talking about CS, or more academic point of views around software development, the terms "Formal Specification" and "Correctness" are often mentioned, yet most CS students/labs still use languages that are really badly suited for this job, such as dynamically typed languages like Python.

goatlover 9y ago
Are languages like C & C++ that much better?
- NTDF9 9y ago
  Neither are "better". Its all about tradeoffs. I hate large python code bases with no strict types specified anywhere. It's a nightmare to maintain that code.
- knocte 9y ago
  Of course not, but Haskell/F#/OCaml/F*/Rust are.
- Tehnix 9y ago
  No, but languages like Haskell, Ocaml, F#, Idris, Purescript, Elm etc are definitely, when talking about correctness.
xfer 9y ago
There are various fields in computer science, nobody claims formal specification and correctness in a NLP/ML library nor in a graphics library. Formal verification is orthogonal to other fields.