3 ms·

Your total functional programming does not solve the problem at hand. TFP prevents you from creating a program that never halts, but it does nothing to prevent

by ynniv 15y ago

Your total functional programming does not solve the problem at hand. TFP prevents you from creating a program that never halts, but it does nothing to prevent you from creating an incomprehensible program that takes 1e10000 years to compute.

aidenn0 15y ago
Not to mention the fact that much software (at the source level at least) never terminates by design.
- zeteo 15y ago
  Yes, some software needs to run in an infinite loop. You can still prove that a single iteration of the loop is safe.
zeteo 15y ago
I don't know anything about TFP personally or whether it's the best tool for this job. (I just agree with the job description.) And you misunderstand the halting problem - you can perfectly well write never-ending programs in a non-Turing complete language. The only difference is that you can tell whether an arbitrary program ends or not.
- ynniv 15y ago
  I don't know anything about TFP personally or whether it's the best tool for this job To say that you don't know anything about it while claiming it will solve our problems is ... dishonest at best. And you misunderstand the halting problem - you can perfectly well write never-ending programs in a non-Turing complete language. The only difference is that you can tell whether an arbitrary program ends or not. I don't think that you understand the implications of the halting problem. You are claiming that use of a Turing incomplete language will make automated verification of programs possible, and that this automated verification will save us from web pages doing things that we do not want. I will suggest that any solid academic would not think highly of your argument. Here's a simple experiment that might help you understand an important flaw in your argument. Determining the range of a short program takes a small amount of time, a longer program takes longer. TPS is a restricted language which allows for programs of any length, as long as they will eventually halt. If I write a huge, complex program, and it will take forever minus a day to halt, how long do you think it will take to verify? Spoiler Alert! Longer than you will wait for a web page to load. The way that we use computers as society is not very academic. If you want to build a web browser that doesn't browse the web, you will find yourself quite lonely.
  - zeteo 15y ago
    To reply to posts without bothering to understand them is... not worth responding to. I have a PhD in CS from an Ivy League school BTW, so spare me the "solid academic" lecturing.
    - ynniv 15y ago
      To reply to posts without bothering to understand them is... not worth responding to. I think that I've done a passable job at understanding the argument and providing sound counter arguments. To each their own opinion. I have a PhD in CS from an Ivy League school BTW, so spare me the "solid academic" lecturing. One remark is hardly a lecture, but great to appeal to credentialism. That's the Ivy League spirit! I on the other hand have a mere bachelors degree; from a public school no less! I would jokingly admit defeat, but my school taught me that defeat is for the defeated. I won't ask which Ivy League school - their reputation in computer science is low enough already.

by ynniv 15y ago

aidenn0 15y ago

Not to mention the fact that much software (at the source level at least) never terminates by design.

zeteo 15y ago
Yes, some software needs to run in an infinite loop. You can still prove that a single iteration of the loop is safe.

zeteo 15y ago

I don't know anything about TFP personally or whether it's the best tool for this job. (I just agree with the job description.) And you misunderstand the halting problem - you can perfectly well write never-ending programs in a non-Turing complete language. The only difference is that you can tell whether an arbitrary program ends or not.

ynniv 15y ago
I don't know anything about TFP personally or whether it's the best tool for this job To say that you don't know anything about it while claiming it will solve our problems is ... dishonest at best. And you misunderstand the halting problem - you can perfectly well write never-ending programs in a non-Turing complete language. The only difference is that you can tell whether an arbitrary program ends or not. I don't think that you understand the implications of the halting problem. You are claiming that use of a Turing incomplete language will make automated verification of programs possible, and that this automated verification will save us from web pages doing things that we do not want. I will suggest that any solid academic would not think highly of your argument. Here's a simple experiment that might help you understand an important flaw in your argument. Determining the range of a short program takes a small amount of time, a longer program takes longer. TPS is a restricted language which allows for programs of any length, as long as they will eventually halt. If I write a huge, complex program, and it will take forever minus a day to halt, how long do you think it will take to verify? Spoiler Alert! Longer than you will wait for a web page to load. The way that we use computers as society is not very academic. If you want to build a web browser that doesn't browse the web, you will find yourself quite lonely.
- zeteo 15y ago
  To reply to posts without bothering to understand them is... not worth responding to. I have a PhD in CS from an Ivy League school BTW, so spare me the "solid academic" lecturing.
  - ynniv 15y ago
    To reply to posts without bothering to understand them is... not worth responding to. I think that I've done a passable job at understanding the argument and providing sound counter arguments. To each their own opinion. I have a PhD in CS from an Ivy League school BTW, so spare me the "solid academic" lecturing. One remark is hardly a lecture, but great to appeal to credentialism. That's the Ivy League spirit! I on the other hand have a mere bachelors degree; from a public school no less! I would jokingly admit defeat, but my school taught me that defeat is for the defeated. I won't ask which Ivy League school - their reputation in computer science is low enough already.