@pelotom @puffnfresh @w7cook right, strong functional programming is not Turing complete. Incorrectness is not desired.
-
-
Replying to @jedws
@jedws@puffnfresh@w7cook guaranteeing termination != guaranteeing correctness1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dysmemic
@pelotom@puffnfresh@w7cook termination is required for total correctness1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jedws
@jedws@puffnfresh@w7cook but not sufficient... the q is whether the notational overhead of stratifying total and non-total is worth it1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dysmemic
@pelotom@puffnfresh@w7cook when did that become question? It's a different and worthy one, but this was about definitions not ergonomics.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jedws
@jedws@puffnfresh@w7cook your entry into the conversation posited what was "desired" in a PL... it was a change of subject1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dysmemic
@pelotom@puffnfresh@w7cook strong functional programming "desires" to guarantee termination1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jedws
@jedws@puffnfresh@w7cook If that's what you meant, no argument here.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dysmemic
@jedws the disconnect in this argument is I've been talking about classifying languages, and@puffnfresh (and you) about classifying styles1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dysmemic
@pelotom@puffnfresh there is no such thing as a functional programming language, just as there is no such thing as OO1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@jedws @pelotom @puffnfresh You are right, only to the extent that some people like to redefine "definition" to mean "yeah like whatever."
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.