←back to thread

193 points ingve | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.817s | source | bottom
1. jes5199 ◴[] No.43713172[source]
I love Haskell because I can write provably correct code that still doesn’t work
replies(4): >>43713179 #>>43713368 #>>43714302 #>>43714956 #
2. declan_roberts ◴[] No.43713179[source]
I love it because I can spend all my time noodling over types and never ship a product that would have been great shipped in a late night wine-fueled session of 1999 PHP.
replies(1): >>43714222 #
3. kqr ◴[] No.43713368[source]
If that is what you want to do, you can do that in any language. It's just that when you do it in e.g. Java, you have to spend a lot longer proving correctness before discovering that it doesn't work.
4. anonzzzies ◴[] No.43714222[source]
Now you would vibe it and ship it during the ol' drink.
replies(1): >>43715240 #
5. jiggawatts ◴[] No.43714302[source]
A Haskell quote I like is: “I’ve only proven this correct, I haven’t tried it.”
replies(1): >>43714346 #
6. neilwilson ◴[] No.43714346[source]
Isn’t that one of Dijkstra’s supposed comments?
replies(1): >>43714380 #
7. OskarS ◴[] No.43714380{3}[source]
It's Knuth! [1]

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."

[1]: https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/faq.html

replies(1): >>43714822 #
8. jiggawatts ◴[] No.43714822{4}[source]
It's incredible that given how fuzzy and inaccurate human memory is, we treat any LLM that can't perfectly recite volumes of information as somehow beneath us.
9. ◴[] No.43714956[source]