Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

chromatic (983)

chromatic
  (email not shown publicly)
http://wgz.org/chromatic/

Blog Information [technorati.com] Profile for chr0matic [technorati.com]
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by Ovid (2709) on 2003.06.06 20:18 (#20898) Homepage Journal

    Software still sucks because our software design abilities do not grow at the same pace as our hardware design abilities. We try new things, we experiment, but "engineer" is certainly not a term that is rightfully applied to programmers. We're some weird amalgam of engineer, artist, and con-artist, all rolled into one. Personally, I suspect that until we get to the point where we can start offering formal proofs that our programs are correct, we're still going to limp along -- though we'll limp faster all the time.

    • I suspect that until we get to the point where we can start offering formal proofs that our programs are correct..

      From what little I remember of my formal methods classes, it's not possible to prove program correctness. The Halting Problem [wikipedia.org]

      I try not to think too hard about formal methods in case I have another Z Notation triggered flashback.

      I think the real gains will come from not treating programming as something done in a vaccum and working on better management and user involvement.

      • There's actually a fair amount of research in functional programming languages such as Haskell about proving program correctness. While granted, there are certain things which cannot be provably correct (as demonstrated by the Halting Problem), the aim of this research is to either develop formal mathematical proof systems for programs, or to calculate programs from mathematically precise specifications. Unfortunately, Gödel had the cheek to prove that any system that contains basic mathematics

        • Okay, this is the second comment I've seen here recently mentioning Haskell (in a positive way at that!), in a forum that seems to me to live on the opposite side of the programming language universe. How many of you (a) have heard of the language, and (b) find it promising/interesting/fun?

          /s

          • Pardon me for recommending myself :), but you can check out this thread about functional programming [perlmonks.org] that I started on Perlmonks. I give a couple of brief examples in Haskell, though MJD has some far more interesting comments in the thread.

            I certainly recommend checking out Haskell. It's an interesting language, though it's not widely used.

            • I've actually spent quite a bit of time playing around in Haskell. Paul Hudak's Haskore [yale.edu] is a pretty decent MIDI manipulation system, though not as good (IMHO) as CLM [stanford.edu]. It's conceptually interesting in a sort of Puritan way, and practically interesting (and relevant to Perl 6) in trying to compile laziness efficiently. But to me it's always been one of these academic languages that's more about itself than about getting anything done. It's optimized for writing a sexy, intuitive 1-line quicksort. Want to
        • While granted, there are certain things which cannot be provably correct (as demonstrated by the Halting Problem), the aim of this research is to either develop formal mathematical proof systems for programs, or to calculate programs from mathematically precise specifications. Unfortunately, Gödel had the cheek to prove that any system that contains basic mathematics can lead to statements that are true, but unproveable, thus ensuring that this research cannot be perfect.

          While the Halting Probl

  • With this, I can officially say I like Slashdot a little more.
    Outstanding objects, and they're developed dirt cheap
    Outstanding objects, and they're developed dirt cheap

    Functors... serialization... patterns...
    Developed dirt cheap
    Regex... templates... iterators...
    Developed dirt cheap
    Sadly, I can hear this song in my head, right now, and will probably make some feeble attempt to make up the rest of the lyrics.
    --

    ------------------------------
    You are what you think.