In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The idea of designing languages with more and more support for > > ensuring program correctness is to put the established, repetitive > > processes into the computer where it belongs, freeing the programmer > > to be innovative while still providing high assurance of that the > > program will be right the first time. > > This seems to make the dangerous assumption that the programmer has > the correct program in mind, and needs only to transfer it correctly > to the computer. > > I would warrant that anyone who understands exactly how a program > should work before writing it, and makes no design mistakes before > coming up with a program that works, is not designing a program of any > interest. I don't get it. Either you think that the above mentioned support for program correctness locks program development into a frozen stasis at its original conception, in which case you don't seem to have read or believed the whole paragraph and haven't been reading much else in this thread. Certainly up to you, but you wouldn't be in a very good position to be drawing weird inferences as above. Or you see original conception of the program as so inherently suspect, that random errors introduced during implementation can reasonably be seen as helpful, which would be an interesting but unusual point of view. Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
