3 ms·
>Also, I've seen plenty of programs that provably have no bugs, but still grow to exhaust all system memory or occasionally take several hours to return from a
by papsosouid 13y ago
>Also, I've seen plenty of programs that provably have no bugs, but still grow to exhaust all system memory or occasionally take several hours to return from a function call for no apparent reason
I think you mean programs that type checked, not programs that provably had no bugs.
- jes5199 13y agoWhat if those programs were guaranteed to do the right thing, if only that had enough time or space to finish? Maybe they're still "correct". Or, to put it another way: our existing type systems don't make code "provably correct", and when people say that it does (like the commenter above), they're trying to talk you into something.
- papsosouid 13y ago>our existing type systems don't make code "provably correct" That is what I am telling you. >and when people say that it does (like the commenter above) They said no such thing.
- jes5199 13y agoYes, you're telling me something that I was already trying to demonstrate with my example.
- papsosouid 13y agoI can't speak to your motive, all I can do is read what you posted. What you posted was wrong, and I explained that.
- jes5199 13y agoWhat I posted was obviously self-contradictory, which is not the same as wrong.
- papsosouid 13y agoWhat you posted was wrong, like I said. There are programs that have proofs demonstrating they are free of bugs. You have not seen them do either of the things you claim to have seen. You were stating something false.