On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 22:04:10 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
There are some unsupported claims ....
Andrei
Well, I'm struggling with the 'claims' on which the DIP mounts
its argument.
(1) That the current syntax for contract programming limits its
usability.
(2) That the more concise syntax being proposed, is both easier
to read and write, and will therefore increase the usage of
contract programming.
The problem with the DIP, as I see it, is:
The evidence for claim (1) is presumably points 1,2,3 in the
Rationale. However, there is no convincing evidence to suggest
there really is a connection between those points and that claim.
The evidence for claim (2) is??
Claims asserted as true without justification are just
assumptions.
DIP authours would do well too study the Toulmin method of
argumentation.
