5 ms·

There are certainly a lot of people who feel that way, though. Especially when the language has an expressive type system. Would you say these languages merel

There are certainly a lot of people who feel that way, though. Especially when the language has an expressive type system. Would you say these languages merely swap one kind of error for another?

pron 8y ago
There are certainly quite a lot of people who feel homeopathy is effective. In both cases, that feeling is a result of a complex process [1]. Explaining why it is unlikely (from a theory perspective) that languages like Haskell have a significant effect on correctness is easier [2], but it, too, requires much more space. What is simple to show is that organizations that develop in, say, Haskell do not produce more correct software more cheaply (or some combination of the two) than those that use other languages. [1]: For example, in this case, what you call "a lot" may just be the effect of some sort of enthusiasm that results in publications rather than an actual great number of people. Also, the feeling can be the result of programmers facing an unfamiliar language that is challenging them, hence they are required to focus and think more, and that gives them a feeling that they're writing something that's more correct. That the languages catches early some errors may also strengthen this feeling. They're also likely writing smaller programs. I've programmed in many languages, and one of the languages where I get it right most quickly is assembly, probably because I write smaller things, and because I need to focus much more. [2]: It's relatively easy to classify which program properties can be assisted by the language and which cannot. Those that can (e.g. memory safety and type safety) are called inductive (or compositional). They can be helpful, but the vast majority of correctness properties aren't inductive. Inductive/compositional means that the property is preserved by all primitive operations in the language.
- sevensor 8y ago
  Interesting! Thanks for a detailed reply. Since you bring up the cost of software, do you believe that using formal methods helps reduce costs?
  - pron 8y ago
    Formal methods encompass a very wide range of techniques that vary wildly in cost. When the appropriate technique is applied to the appropriate problem, then it can certainly reduce costs, even significantly. But like I wrote in another comment, most of the cost of building software is determined by what we build, not how. Tools and techniques, even those that are effective, can only help so much.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  There is a large amount of evidence that shows that homeopathy isn't effective. As far as evidence goes, there is more evidence pointing that FP leads to correctness than otherwise, although none of it is conclusive.
  - pron 8y ago
    > There is a large amount of evidence that shows that homeopathy isn't effective. That's not quite how evidence for the existence of effects works. Evidence for lack of an effect is the attempt, and subsequent failure, to find it. Few studies have been able to substantiate the hypothesis that homeopathy is very effective, just like the case for FP. It's just that there have been far fewer studies overall testing the second hypothesis than the first. So while we can be more confident that, indeed, homeopathy isn't effective than in the case of FP, there is still no weight to the claim that FP is effective when it comes to correctness. > there is more evidence pointing that FP leads to correctness than otherwise There isn't. It's perfectly OK that people write about how much they like FP or OOP because the paradigm fits well with how they think, they like its aesthetics, or any similar reasons. It's not OK to try and justify the preference by making up completely unsupported empirical claims. And by the way, even when there is no evidence one way or the other, you still cannot claim there is an effect.
    - Tehnix 8y ago
      >> there is more evidence pointing that FP leads to correctness than otherwise > There isn't. But there is. Take this paper for example, http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~filkov/papers/lang_github.pdf http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~filkov/papers/lang_github.pdf "A Large Scale Study of Programming Languages and Code Quality in Github". "The data indicates functional languages are better than procedural languages; it suggests that strong typing is better than weak typing; that static typing is better than dynamic; and that managed memory usage is better than un- managed. Further, that the defect proneness of languages in general is not associated with software domains. Also, languages are more related to individual bug categories than bugs overall."
      - 8y ago
mpweiher 8y ago
> who feel that way You hit the nail on the head: The Safyness of Static Typing https://blog.metaobject.com/2014/06/the-safyness-of-static-typing.html https://blog.metaobject.com/2014/06/the-safyness-of-static-t... (This is obviously for static typing, not FP, but the mechanism appears largely the same and the overlap is substantial)

There are certainly a lot of people who feel that way, though. Especially when the language has an expressive type system. Would you say these languages merely swap one kind of error for another?

pron 8y ago

There are certainly quite a lot of people who feel homeopathy is effective. In both cases, that feeling is a result of a complex process [1]. Explaining why it is unlikely (from a theory perspective) that languages like Haskell have a significant effect on correctness is easier [2], but it, too, requires much more space. What is simple to show is that organizations that develop in, say, Haskell do not produce more correct software more cheaply (or some combination of the two) than those that use other languages. [1]: For example, in this case, what you call "a lot" may just be the effect of some sort of enthusiasm that results in publications rather than an actual great number of people. Also, the feeling can be the result of programmers facing an unfamiliar language that is challenging them, hence they are required to focus and think more, and that gives them a feeling that they're writing something that's more correct. That the languages catches early some errors may also strengthen this feeling. They're also likely writing smaller programs. I've programmed in many languages, and one of the languages where I get it right most quickly is assembly, probably because I write smaller things, and because I need to focus much more. [2]: It's relatively easy to classify which program properties can be assisted by the language and which cannot. Those that can (e.g. memory safety and type safety) are called inductive (or compositional). They can be helpful, but the vast majority of correctness properties aren't inductive. Inductive/compositional means that the property is preserved by all primitive operations in the language.

sevensor 8y ago
Interesting! Thanks for a detailed reply. Since you bring up the cost of software, do you believe that using formal methods helps reduce costs?
- pron 8y ago
  Formal methods encompass a very wide range of techniques that vary wildly in cost. When the appropriate technique is applied to the appropriate problem, then it can certainly reduce costs, even significantly. But like I wrote in another comment, most of the cost of building software is determined by what we build, not how. Tools and techniques, even those that are effective, can only help so much.
marcosdumay 8y ago
There is a large amount of evidence that shows that homeopathy isn't effective. As far as evidence goes, there is more evidence pointing that FP leads to correctness than otherwise, although none of it is conclusive.
- pron 8y ago
  > There is a large amount of evidence that shows that homeopathy isn't effective. That's not quite how evidence for the existence of effects works. Evidence for lack of an effect is the attempt, and subsequent failure, to find it. Few studies have been able to substantiate the hypothesis that homeopathy is very effective, just like the case for FP. It's just that there have been far fewer studies overall testing the second hypothesis than the first. So while we can be more confident that, indeed, homeopathy isn't effective than in the case of FP, there is still no weight to the claim that FP is effective when it comes to correctness. > there is more evidence pointing that FP leads to correctness than otherwise There isn't. It's perfectly OK that people write about how much they like FP or OOP because the paradigm fits well with how they think, they like its aesthetics, or any similar reasons. It's not OK to try and justify the preference by making up completely unsupported empirical claims. And by the way, even when there is no evidence one way or the other, you still cannot claim there is an effect.
  - Tehnix 8y ago
    >> there is more evidence pointing that FP leads to correctness than otherwise > There isn't. But there is. Take this paper for example, http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~filkov/papers/lang_github.pdf http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~filkov/papers/lang_github.pdf "A Large Scale Study of Programming Languages and Code Quality in Github". "The data indicates functional languages are better than procedural languages; it suggests that strong typing is better than weak typing; that static typing is better than dynamic; and that managed memory usage is better than un- managed. Further, that the defect proneness of languages in general is not associated with software domains. Also, languages are more related to individual bug categories than bugs overall."
    - 8y ago

mpweiher 8y ago

> who feel that way You hit the nail on the head: The Safyness of Static Typing https://blog.metaobject.com/2014/06/the-safyness-of-static-typing.html https://blog.metaobject.com/2014/06/the-safyness-of-static-t... (This is obviously for static typing, not FP, but the mechanism appears largely the same and the overlap is substantial)