News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Software 2.0. Parent comment

Re:Software 2.0 by naasking on Tuesday February 21, 2023 @03:32PM (#34886721)
> The point is that if you are trying to replace millions of developers, you will obviously require something on the order of quadrillions of spec writers.

Why do you think you need orders of magnitude more spec writers than coders rather than the other way around?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Software 2.0 by marcosdumay on Tuesday February 21, 2023 @03:51PM (#34887053)
That is an intrinsic feature of software verification. You either have a formal system or you have an exponentially growing amount of corner cases to verify.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Software 2.0 by naasking on Tuesday February 21, 2023 @04:21PM (#34887544)
What kind of verification is done without a formal system?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Software 2.0 by marcosdumay on Tuesday February 21, 2023 @04:29PM (#34887686)
We usually call those "tests", but some people do really like non-formal linter rules too. (Personally, I abhor checking rules with high false positive odds.)

AFAIK, those are the only ones in common use, but differently from formal ones, non-formal things tends to come on a multitude of widely different types. So I wouldn't be surprised if people have invented many more.

[ Parent | on HN ]