November 23, 2017
On Thursday, 23 November 2017 at 07:13:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
>
> Heh, has the Goldbach conjecture been proven undecidable?

Not to my knowledge ;-)

At best, it's a possiblity - which can go either way.

No human or computer will ever make it anything more than that. Ever.

Someone saying it's true, up to < n, is not addressing the problem.

Someone trying to address the problem, does not even understand the problem ;-)

November 23, 2017
On Thursday, 23 November 2017 at 07:20:41 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 November 2017 at 01:16:59 UTC, codephantom wrote:
>> That's why we have the concept of 'undefined behaviour'.
>
> Errr, no.  High level programming languages don't have undefined behaviour. That is a C concept related to the performance of the executable. C tries to get as close to machine language as possible.

Many high level languages let you use 'unsafe' code, where you can write erroneous operations - and then you're back in the world of undefined behaviour.

Are you saying, that a high level language can trap *all* errors?

As per the Goldbach conjecture... where is the proof?

November 23, 2017
On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:08:45 +0000, codephantom wrote:

> So yeah, you can change the language.. or you can change the way people think about their code. When they think differently, their code will change accordingly.
> 
> My point about sophisticated IDE's and AI like compilers, is that they don't seem to have addressed the real issue - that is, changing the way people think about their code. If anything, they've introduced so many distractions and so much automation, that people are just not thinking about their code anymore. So now, language designers are being forced to step in and start regulating programmer behaviour. I don't like that approach.
> 
> You rarely hear anything about defensive programming these days, but it's more important now, than it ever was. I'd make it the number one priority for new developers. But you won't even find the concept being taught at our universities. They're too busy teaching students to program in Python ..hahha...the future is looking pretty bleak ;-(

It's easier to write better tools than it is to change people. That seems to me to be a big part of the D language design.

The sophisticated IDEs and compilers exist to help developers write better code; large projects are too complex, and open source projects especially receive contributions from people that don't know the code, so if the compiler can help, it should.

I left Python for D mostly because of variable annotations[1]. The following is valid in Python 3.6:

>>> myvar : int = "some string"
>>> print(myvar)
some string

If my compiler/interpreter won't tell me if I do something stupid like that, I don't want to waste my time with it. If your language gives me explicit types, it needs to give me some sort of type safety with them; otherwise your language is a hack. Static analysis will catch this, but I shouldn't need to run a static analysis tool or use an IDE to find an error like that.

> What if I did a security audit on DMD or PHOBOS. What would I discover?
> 
> What if I did a security audit on all the D code at github. What would I discover?

If you have the skills, this would (in my opinion) be an amazing use of your time. I'd recommend just auditing the core tools and popular libraries, rather than all code unless it's a hobby of yours though.


[1]: https://docs.python.org/3.6/whatsnew/3.6.html#whatsnew36-pep526
November 23, 2017
On Thursday, 23 November 2017 at 08:47:43 UTC, codephantom wrote:
> Many high level languages let you use 'unsafe' code, where you can write erroneous operations - and then you're back in the world of undefined behaviour.

Not many, but many allow interfacing with C, then it is up to those user to verify the correctness of their C code.

> Are you saying, that a high level language can trap *all* errors?

Not sure what you mean by trap, they use static or runtime checks to uphold the language specification.

Whether something is an error or not beyond that is highly subjective. I.e. we cannot talk about errors unless we have a specification to judge the actual behaviour by.


November 23, 2017
On Wednesday, 22 November 2017 at 18:16:16 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
>
>> Perhaps that's why I've never considered nulls to be an issue. I take proactive steps to protect my code, before the compiler ever sees it. And actually, I cannot recall any null related error in any code I've deployed. It's just never been an issue.
>
> Oh, that explains it.  He's a _robot_! ;)

Actually, you touch on an important point, which is implicit in my argument - (i.e changing the way you think, will change the way you write code).

We are programmable too ;-)

But who's doing the programming...

November 23, 2017
On Wednesday, 22 November 2017 at 10:20:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> LOL. I assumed that you were legitimately asking what the name of his compiler was, because I knew that he was writing a D compiler, whereas you were questioning his knowledge/credentials. Timon is a very smart guy. He knows a lot and has lots of great things to say. I certainly don't always agree with him, but he generally knows what he's talking about.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis


I thought he was becoming a little confrontational with the Master Wizard (W), so I sought to check his credentials ;-)

November 24, 2017
On Friday, 24 November 2017 at 20:29:23 UTC, codephantom wrote:
> On Friday, 24 November 2017 at 12:10:28 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>> On Thursday, 23 November 2017 at 06:35:17 UTC, codephantom wrote:
>>> I love not being able to edit posts. It's so convenient.
>>
>> It's not as much of a problem as not being able to hide all posts by a user who repeats arguments, derails the conversation onto irrelevant side discussions and judges individuals instead of the idea they are conveying.
>
> So...you've just described your own post...you moron.
>
> Fuck you.

This is going too far. This mailing list is for civil discourse.
November 25, 2017
On 24.11.2017 13:10, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 November 2017 at 06:35:17 UTC, codephantom wrote:
>> ... not being able to edit posts. ...
> 
> It's not as much of a problem as not being able to hide all posts by a user ...

Given that it can be accomplished on the client side, it is actually easy to not display posts from specific users.

About editing: I'd posit we can simply ask people to think about the news group differently and to just write their posts correctly in one shot.
November 25, 2017
On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 01:00:43 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>
> Given that it can be accomplished on the client side, it is actually easy to not display posts from specific users.

Civility returns. Horray...

And thankyou. This a much more constructive option for users that disagree with something I say. i.e. Now they can just hide me, instead of attacking me.

> About editing: I'd posit we can simply ask people to think about the news group differently and to just write their posts correctly in one shot.

I'll give that a go next time.. otherwise people will start wanting the forum to implement a spell checker...and a thesuras (how do you spell that anyway??).

November 25, 2017
On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 01:23:03 UTC, codephantom wrote:
> And thankyou. This a much more constructive option for users that disagree with something I say. i.e. Now they can just hide me, instead of attacking me.

Dont worry, both Walter and Andrei have done far worse in these fora over the years than you do... Or "forums" as the English quite incorrectly spells it.

> I'll give that a go next time.. otherwise people will start wanting the forum to implement a spell checker...and a thesuras (how do you spell that anyway??).

Thesauri ?