seen from Canada
seen from Russia
seen from Germany
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from China
seen from Türkiye
seen from Japan
seen from Kuwait
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
There are many legitimate reasons [to] learn template metaprogramming, like job security or job security … but if you want to learn template metaprogramming the most likely explanation is you are nuts. Practical uses? Not really. Yeah, if you are a boost developer … you can write neat stuff, but in your everyday job you are most likely never going to use them. [Unpretentious] programmers tend to like getting their jobs done.
Nicolás Brailovsky
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Why Am I Like This, pt. XV, pt. II
What? You thought I was done? HA!
Hello yes if you are writing a type system that breaks if a variable starts with a lower case letter you should consider modifying that behavior thank you
also there is a thing called “documentation”
Sound & Complete
blog post // annotated
formal logic gives us two properties to describe any evaluation procedure:
soundness – a sound jury will never send a guilty person free
completeness – a complete jury will never send an innocent person to jail
soundness and completeness are orthogonal: you can have any combination of soundness and completeness
a sound type system (or analysis) is one that rejects all erroneous programs, and a complete system accepts all correct programs
which is more important for static analysis?
sound analyses compose
many of the properties you really want to have verified (such as “does this rendering look right?”) don’t fall in the scope of the verification system
which is more important for type systems?
a sound type system is one that is not lenient – it rejects all invalid programs plus some number of valid programs
a complete type system accepts all valid programs, and some invalid ones to boot
the answer isn't quite as obvious as in static analysis
a programming language with a complete and unsound (static) type system has a fallback in the form of dynamic typing
Dependent type systems therefore blur the distinction between compile-time type checking and runtime type checking, and thus between static and dynamic typing.
Programmers dislike having the computer reject a program that would have run fine, simply because the computer couldn’t make sure it would run fine without actually running it
The target domain matters
For example, one hopes that the language for a program controlling an airliner’s fuel supply preferred soundness over completeness
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Inference rules and separate compilation
When defining type systems, it is often the case that the "natural" inference rules for the system are unsuitable for actual implementation, and so an alternate system must be given (e.g. a bidirectional system or otherwise.)
For module systems, it would seem that the natural inference rules are usually unsuitable for separate compilation. So you have a similar problem as well.
Scala is a tastefully typed language: it is statically typed, but explicit types appear in just the right places.
Neil Gafter, forward to Programming in Scala
