Pet peeve: comments like // after this line of code, x == 7 which don't clarify what `x == 7` evaluates to
Show this thread
I feel like there's a Doug Hofstadter kind of thing going on here. Programming languages don't actually have the expressive power to make statements about reality. Even `assert(x == 7)` isn't a statement. It performs a test which can fail
-
-
Depends on the programming language. For example, Prolog is designed around the idea that you make exactly such statements.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles … // (...(((x==7)==true)==true)==true...)==true?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ah, but with dependent types you could have the compiler prove that x = 7! And all it costs is five to six times longer to make or change anything!
-
(seriously though, the Idris book is really great: https://www.manning.com/books/type-driven-development-with-idris …)
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.