| > The world you paint isn't the real world. My world is this one: http://www.prover.com/company/press/view/?id=47 http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jrh13/slides/nasa-14apr10/slides.pd... http://sel4.systems/ ... and so on. And, honestly, I don't want to have anything in common with your "real world", where graduate larvae with IQ < 80 is allowed to code automotive microcontrollers. > In other words, one where your total languages are virtually nowhere to be found. We're speaking about mission critical stuff, which is already a virtually nonexistent thing dwarfed by CRUD and all such crap. > And, BTW, even experienced programmers screw up recursion because it just isn't used that often. I don't want to blame newbies. I see. You did not get a single word from what I said. Pity. Let me repeat my point again: humans are brainless scumbags. They should never be trusted with anything important. If anything can be screwed up, it will be screwed up in an epic scale. The only way to avoid an epic screwup is to exclude this brainless scum from the process, and let the immaculate formal systems do the job. > I am just asking that you understand that the frame of reference you have constructed is not one that matches our current reality. I'd prefer to stay away as far as possible from your reality. Mine is much better. In my reality, a code without multiple layers of formal proof would not ever be signed off for anything mission critical (although I admit that the most deadly stuff I worked with were anti-aircraft systems, nothing fancy like nuclear plants and such). |