At the end, she is talking about how it is "impossible to guarentee that there are compatible operations", and she just kind of says "you can't guarentee anything beyond types". That is clearly absurd; humans are able to guarentee things about code beyond what current compilers are able to. Humans are not magic: anything a human can do, a compiler should theoretically be able to do as well. I think there is a lot potential in finding more annotations then just types, and using them to verify.
Well after two undergrad degrees and one masters I am burned out on what any professor whats to know from me as a student. But that said, exams are good for the soul..I suppose.
I got like 15 min in so far, but I am already starting to get really annoyed. All she is doing is reviewing the most bullshit parts of CS... the parts based on peoples conjectures, with no proof or evidence. The arguments for "how to design" are not "look at this data about what works" but "I published a paper so it must be true, even though I just made it up out of my ass (sorry, I mean 'persona experiences and insights')".
So nice to enjoy a lecture without exams in my future.
At the end, she is talking about how it is "impossible to guarentee that there are compatible operations", and she just kind of says "you can't guarentee anything beyond types". That is clearly absurd; humans are able to guarentee things about code beyond what current compilers are able to. Humans are not magic: anything a human can do, a compiler should theoretically be able to do as well. I think there is a lot potential in finding more annotations then just types, and using them to verify.
well .. it's mainstream in general from my perspective, not only in science ..
Well after two undergrad degrees and one masters I am burned out on what any professor whats to know from me as a student. But that said, exams are good for the soul..I suppose.
what's so bad about exam? :)
I got like 15 min in so far, but I am already starting to get really annoyed. All she is doing is reviewing the most bullshit parts of CS... the parts based on peoples conjectures, with no proof or evidence. The arguments for "how to design" are not "look at this data about what works" but "I published a paper so it must be true, even though I just made it up out of my ass (sorry, I mean 'persona experiences and insights')".