2 ms·

That is, for me, the genius of LP. It's not just a "style" you garnish on top of your code. When you do LP you become more likely to reread the documentation as

That is, for me, the genius of LP. It's not just a "style" you garnish on top of your code. When you do LP you become more likely to reread the documentation as you maintain the program. Which makes it easier to keep it up to date. On the other hand, all the LP programs I've seen were built by people who care about documentation. Perhaps we would have managed to keep things up to date even without LP. There may be a selection bias here. Either way, I'd say you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to daly's Axiom (http://axiom-developer.org http://axiom-developer.org). It doesn't just end up with outdated comments, that's a serious charge to level without concrete evidence. Similarly, I'd be extremely interested in outdated comments in https://github.com/akkartik/mu/tree/main/linux/bootstrap https://github.com/akkartik/mu/tree/main/linux/bootstrap which is written in the LP style I described in OP. I consider outdated comments to be bugs.

Someone 5y ago
The main problem with maintenance of programs is that, when changing an assumption ‘deep down’ in the code, about nobody is going to check the chain of logic from there throughout the code. IMO, LP-style programming doesn’t change that. If the problem happens less with programs written in LP-style, I agree with you chances are it’s because people who write in that style tend to be more careful. What would change it is to require programmers to supply proofs about their code. Unit tests don’t guarantee that, but have the benefit of being easier to write.
- akkartik 5y ago
  But you're expanding the scope now. Yes, LP isn't going to guarantee you always preserve semantics in any change. But hopefully we can agree that it's not going to make it more difficult. Unit tests or proofs are extremely useful. You should still have them in Literate programs! They're complementary tools. My Literate system does explicitly assume tests unlike earlier systems I was dissatisfied with. Check out all the tests in https://github.com/akkartik/mu/tree/main/linux/bootstrap https://github.com/akkartik/mu/tree/main/linux/bootstrap. For example, https://github.com/akkartik/mu/blob/main/linux/bootstrap/013direct_addressing.cc#L7 https://github.com/akkartik/mu/blob/main/linux/bootstrap/013...

Someone 5y ago

The main problem with maintenance of programs is that, when changing an assumption ‘deep down’ in the code, about nobody is going to check the chain of logic from there throughout the code. IMO, LP-style programming doesn’t change that. If the problem happens less with programs written in LP-style, I agree with you chances are it’s because people who write in that style tend to be more careful. What would change it is to require programmers to supply proofs about their code. Unit tests don’t guarantee that, but have the benefit of being easier to write.

akkartik 5y ago
But you're expanding the scope now. Yes, LP isn't going to guarantee you always preserve semantics in any change. But hopefully we can agree that it's not going to make it more difficult. Unit tests or proofs are extremely useful. You should still have them in Literate programs! They're complementary tools. My Literate system does explicitly assume tests unlike earlier systems I was dissatisfied with. Check out all the tests in https://github.com/akkartik/mu/tree/main/linux/bootstrap https://github.com/akkartik/mu/tree/main/linux/bootstrap. For example, https://github.com/akkartik/mu/blob/main/linux/bootstrap/013direct_addressing.cc#L7 https://github.com/akkartik/mu/blob/main/linux/bootstrap/013...