51–60 of 288 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me it's typically weighted less on the type system and more the fact that I don't need to wait for a compiler or use any fancy tools to get a quick idea realized.
I’ve been developing with compiled languages since the early 90s and even with a computer of that era, compiling within a decent IDE hasn’t slowed me down.
I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…
I haven't watched the full talk, so let me know if this gets explored by Lamport, but... Here's a thought: PL researchers seem to generally agree that typed languages are superior to untyped languages, yet programmers tend to prefer untyped languages to typed languages, to the point where Java and C++ have the fanciest type systems in common use, with ML being the closest thing to an academic language that gets signi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> programmers tend to prefer untyped (dyanamic?) languages to typed languages I have not found this in practice. I have found that some developers prefer a dynamically typed language for certain situations, like rapid prototyping. However when maintaining code bases, I've found that developers often bemoan the lack of static types to assist in small modifications to code they haven't touched in a while. Personally I…
For me it's typically weighted less on the type system and more the fact that I don't need to wait for a compiler or use any fancy tools to get a quick idea realized.
With all due respect to Leslie Lamport his "what could be more beautiful" explanation of Euclid's algorithm is no easier for me to make sense of than these[0] various implementations. For a "complex" problem[1] you cannot write a unified field definition[2] before the fact. Otherwise the problem would have to be merely complicated (most sufficiently useful systems are complex). The easiest way humans can make sense o…
TLA+ certainly allows you to describe a system as a set of scenarios/properties (what I assume you would call tests), and also of asserting that a design satisfies them.
There was a system I worked on that was so complex that I was only able to design it using TLA+; engineers at Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle and Intel report similar experiences.
I think we need reusable (formal) specifications for it to become adapted widely. If that could be done in a way similar to how we today use open source libraries of reusable code, findable via a package manager, it might fly. Writing formal specs from scratch each and every time is too time consuming relative to the gain, except for in a few critical usecases.
I believe these are the kinds of ideas that might actually create a genuine engineering culture in software development. Until we start applying this kind of rigor to our work, I don't believe the title of "Software Engineer" is justified. It doesn't have to be TLA+; it doesn't have to be any particular tool or technology or pattern or whatever. But the attitude that rigor and formal technique is worth the additional…
I believe these are the kinds of ideas that might actually create a genuine engineering culture in software development. Until we start applying this kind of rigor to our work, I don't believe the title of "Software Engineer" is justified. It doesn't have to be TLA+; it doesn't have to be any particular tool or technology or pattern or whatever. But the attitude that rigor and formal technique is worth the additional…
I disagree that engineering is the best approach to writing software. I think this is the fundamental difference between people who prefer static vs dynamic typing. People who prefer static typing are more likely to say that one solution is more "correct" than the other, whereas dynamic typing allows more flexibility. I see writing software to be similar to writing music. Music has rules and structure, but leaves roo…
Bad music carries only the risk of people not liking it. Bad code on the other hand...