On 06/19/2014 10:39 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com>" wrote:
On Thursday, 19 June 2014 at 20:26:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
...
No, your line of reasoning is flawed. The amount of resources is not a
constant. You must prove that memory safety holds for
I have not set out to prove anything,
This is a discussion about proving memory safety.
(Though this is not at all apparent from the original topic. This sort
of went out of hand. :o))
I dislike how people abuse CS in order to "win" an argument.
Sorry for having "won" the argument if that is what you are implying.
That was not my intention and this is not actually a contest. My
intention was to defend the use of properties of Turing machines in the
context of a Turing complete programming language. I wanted to convey
the message that it has no "issues" and it is not "fundamentally
flawed". I also don't think I am guilty of "abuse".
If you guys want to leverage CS theory do it
properly or leave it out. Just because you have read Garey and Johnson
I haven't, if that helps.
does not mean that you should leverage it without proper treatment.
I failed to decipher this part of the sentence. Is it just some more
boring name calling or is there an insight behind it?
NB: I have started to write down a complete-ish list of @safe language
features and I will post them to the issue opened by H.S. Teoh soon.
