On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Chris Warburton <[email protected]>wrote:
> > To use David's analogy, there are some desirable properties that > programmers exploit which are inherently "3D" and cannot be represented > in the "2D" world. Of course, there are also "4D" properties which our > "3D" infrastructure cannot represent, for example correct refactorings > that our IDE will think are unsafe, correct optimisations which our > compiler will think are unsafe, etc. At some point we have to give up > and claim that the meta-meta-meta-....-system is "enough for practical > purposes" and "obviously correct" in its implementation. > > The properties that David is interested in preserving under composition > (termination, maintainability, security, etc.) are very meta, so it's > easy for them to become unrepresentable and difficult to encode when a > language/system/model isn't designed with them in mind. > Well said.
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
