3 ms·
I think I can understand and appreciate many different aspects of Computer science, but programming language theory truly is a bit too arcane and formal for me.
by Asdfbla 9y ago
I think I can understand and appreciate many different aspects of Computer science, but programming language theory truly is a bit too arcane and formal for me. I still try to follow it somewhat though (like when the Morning Paper had its nice writeup about RustBelt) and I enjoy learning Rust (which exposes you to the theory underlying its design more than other languages). Maybe it's good that the results of formal methods now find more practical application, so it's easier to get people (who aren't hardcore logicians) interested in the whole topic.
- dtornabene 9y agoI felt a similar way for a long time. Software Foundations by Pierce (and a few other similar books) worked for me personally, by illuminating verification of PL through a programming-like environment. Scripting proof automation was enlightening is what I'm trying to say. If you haven't given it a shot and have the time, check it out.
- pornel 9y agoI find Rust's RFC/design discussions fascinating. They're a mix of serious Programming Language Theory and practice. The same feature in Rust is seen by some as "algebraic data types" and "oh cool, I can add data to enums" by others. Some feature proposals starting with "wouldn't it be nice to have…" end up designed with input from people who literally have a PhD in this feature (and are bikesheded until people without PhDs can use the feature).