Copying @hillelogram's idea for avoiding doomscrolling.
AMA about:
programming languages
being a CS PhD student
being a CS professor
starting a company
JeanDate
producing #zoombachelorette and @zoombachelor
other topics not on list
-
-
I've been thinking a lot about integration friction since I read your blog post. Do you think its possible that some of the more mainstream excitement around languages like rust could be because they provide some of the benefits of a static analysis but without external tools?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Oh yes absolutely!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'd never really thought of that before! I knew that people liked rust for its safety features, but I never had the realization that (duh) those features have been available for decades as external tools... but now they're available in-language!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alpha_convert @jeanqasaur and
I was thinking about this because I *just* submitted my NSF GRFP application on a language-agnostic static resource analysis tool, but presented in a way to minimize adoption friction (it'd be understandable by non-experts) ... but maybe I need to focus on specific languages!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alpha_convert @jeanqasaur and
A key part of Rust is that by putting memory safety in the type system, all programs must be safe *by construction*. It means greater social cohesion bc library writers/users can trust each other more. Whereas using eg Coverity for C, I can only hope that it catches all bugs.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
You could ship Coverity with gcc and enable it by default. But soundness is critical -- it enables trust b/c I know you can't give me code that violates type system guarantees.
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.
cognitive psychology. PhD