3 ms·
Right, there you are with the definite article again. What you're asserting is that without this system of rigor and discipline, there can be no other rigorous
by urbit 13y ago
Right, there you are with the definite article again.
What you're asserting is that without this system of rigor and discipline, there can be no other rigorous and disciplined way of defining programming languages. For one thing, this flies in the face of everything we know about the philosophy of mathematics.
I think my way of defining programming languages is pretty rigorous and disciplined. I'll continue to think that until you or anyone can identify some sloppy ambiguities. I note also that my foundation fits on a T-shirt and yours needs a math textbook...
- freyrs3 13y agoThis is exactly the point, you may think your system is rigorous and disciplined but how do you convey that to other people with them having the same degree of certainty that you feel your system has. The answer to that is the proofs and formalization, and that is the essence of what rigor in programming language design is about.
- urbit 13y agoMy definition of "rigorous and disciplined" comes from an entirely different world, the world of RFCs. Here, you can look at my axioms and identify anything unrigorous or undisciplined about them: https://github.com/urbit/urbit/blob/master/Spec/nock/5.txt https://github.com/urbit/urbit/blob/master/Spec/nock/5.txt A bunch of people have written compatible implementations from the spec, which is the RFC world's general sanity test.