3 ms·

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 fr

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...