4 ms·
> Now that I've ranted my heart out, here's a coda that attempts to be constructive. As I mentioned, part of the problem is that we equivocate when talking abou
by emotionalcode 12y ago
> Now that I've ranted my heart out, here's a coda that attempts to be constructive. As I mentioned, part of the problem is that we equivocate when talking about “types”. Instead of saying “type” or “type system”, I encourage anyone to check whether anything from the following alternative vocabulary will communicate the intended meaning. Deciding which term is appropriate is a good mental exercise for figuring out what meaning is actually intended.
> * data abstraction
> * data type
> * predicate, proposition
> * proof, proof system
> * interface specification [language]
> * [compile-time] checker
> * specification, verification
> * invariant (the thing that “types” are usually specifying!)
I add precondition, postcondition, state. As well, I think the space in between has importance: map, transformer, relation, command. Formalization is tricky, from my understanding.