4 ms·
Once you have fixed an evaluation strategy, you can talk about time complexity just fine. And, with a substructural type system, you can also talk about space c
by catnaroek 11y ago
Once you have fixed an evaluation strategy, you can talk about time complexity just fine. And, with a substructural type system, you can also talk about space complexity just fine.
So it's not abstraction vs. algorithms. The lambda calculus gives you both.
- pron 11y agoYou're probably right -- I don't have the tools to argue with you -- but you know, as an algorithms person I view this whole abstraction discussion as revolving around UI. To me, UI should be intuitive and never get in your way. I'm appalled to think that I need to spend time learning what a substructural type system is in order to analyze the complexity of my algorithms. I can verify the correctness of my algorithms just fine (to the extent I need them verified, which usually isn't that much, at least not upfront), and so far I have seen zero evidence to support the claim that PFP makes developing software any cheaper. But I see more and more concepts going into abstractions and CH verification that I just can't see the justification for such mental overload standing between me and my algorithms. I'm perfectly happy with a model checker in the very rare cases I need one, and it doesn't require any substructural type systems, or even changing my choice of programming language (there are model checkers that work at the Java bytecode level and verify any program targeting the JVM regardless of the language).