←back to thread

Parse, Don't Validate (2019)

(lexi-lambda.github.io)
389 points melse | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.413s | source
Show context
ukj ◴[] No.27639995[source]
Software Engineers: Parse, don't validate.

Mathematicians: Parsing is validation

https://gallais.github.io/pdf/draft_sigbovik21.pdf

replies(3): >>27640078 #>>27640121 #>>27640235 #
pwdisswordfish8 ◴[] No.27640078[source]
The point being, the converse of ‘parsing is validation’ is not true.
replies(2): >>27640111 #>>27641094 #
ukj ◴[] No.27640111[source]
The word "is" implies an isomorphism.

If you see it differently you are implicitly assuming a non-formalist perspective on what "validation" means. Tell us about it.

replies(4): >>27640132 #>>27640147 #>>27640155 #>>27640177 #
thereare5lights ◴[] No.27640147[source]
> The word "is" implies an isomorphism.

Are you talking about a bijective mapping or are you saying it's a synonym for identical?

Because the former doesn't make any sense here and the latter is not true.

Red is a color does not imply that all colors are red.

replies(1): >>27640203 #
1. ukj ◴[] No.27640203[source]
I am talking about the polymorphic use of the verb "is" during the process of formalization.

"Red is a color" can be formalized as "Red is a type of color" or "Red is member of set Colors".

You can't formalize "Color is red" because it doesn't mean anything.

When I say "Parsing is validation" I am using the verb "is" to mean an isomorphism.

replies(1): >>27656103 #
2. thereare5lights ◴[] No.27656103[source]
Judging by all the other disagreeing comments, your in some sort of idiosyncratic context that only you understand.

Good luck with that.