2 ms·
> You (and most PLT advocates I've encountered) seem to be evaluating languages on their inputs/features (presumably because you believe axiomatically that cert
by cannabis_sam 7y ago
> You (and most PLT advocates I've encountered) seem to be evaluating languages on their inputs/features (presumably because you believe axiomatically that certain features--e.g., type systems--have a huge effect on the success or failure of a given software project) while the "useful for real world problems" view is about evaluating languages on their outputs.
I don’t, so please keep you assumptions to yourself and don’t put words to in my mouth.
> in correct proportion (no axiomatic beliefs).
What is this based on?
- throwaway894345 7y ago> I don’t, so please keep you assumptions to yourself and don’t put words to in my mouth. I'm hardly putting words in your mouth. You were expressing more-or-less exactly this sentiment in your previous post. > What is this based on? It follows by definition of output-based or blackbox evaluation. Evaluating the output of a system implies that you are evaluating inputs in proportion to their contribution to the output.
- cannabis_sam 7y ago> I'm hardly putting words in your mouth. You were expressing more-or-less exactly this sentiment in your previous post. Trust me, I wasn’t. > It follows by definition of output-based or blackbox evaluation. Evaluating the output of a system implies that you are evaluating inputs in proportion to their contribution to the output. I like this! It’s like pure functions/total programming, only not rigorously defined in the slightest. It’s not an answer to my question though, HOW do you know that the results of your output/blackbox testing is correct?