Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

When will libc and libc++ be formally proven?

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 0:59

Never, that's when. You couldn't prove a Hello World in such vague, shitty languages. Why do we tolerate C (and what people call C even though it's not C++, just because it doesn't use classes) to program critical systems again?

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 1:20

sicp and knr shits all over your nigger huskel

>muh abstractions over 1s and 0s since im so shitty at arithmetic
>le huskel face

>not using forth

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 1:30

For what reason would you need to prove a language?
Hell, what do you even mean by proving?

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 1:35

>>1-san hasn't read eir knuth todai...

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 5:12

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 17:53

>>5
Bla-bla-bla brilliant hacker lone wolf romanticism, and in reality you're just stuck reinventing GC or pattern matching all day.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 19:20

formally proving things just makes them less secure and more buggy

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 19:21

>>7
Because some /prog/ illiterate said so? OK.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 19:33

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 20:42

Formally proven to be completely useless shit?

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 20:58

formally verify these dubs

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 22:01

☜( ด็็็็็้้้้้็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็ ਊ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ )☞

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 22:08

Formally prove my anus.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-02 23:25

>>13
/prog/ → anus ; /prog/ Axiom IV
/prog/ ; /prog/ (Axiom I)
∴ anus ; Q.E.D.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-03 5:25

>>6
It feels like satire on Paul Graham "genius Lisp programmers".

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-03 5:35

>>15
Genius LITHP Brogrammers

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-03 5:44

C is the purest, unadulterated form of Blub.
C causes deep, uncurable Stockholm syndrome.
C is free as in freedom to destroy everything in a few keystrokes.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-03 5:45

>>6,15,16,17
``rockstar ninjas'' detected

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-03 18:44

>>9
At least you are an illiterate math-uneducated retard who thinks that programming is about ones and zeroes and von Neumann.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-03 20:56

Margit, there is a sequence point at the end of “r=0;”. See Annex C of the C99 standard which says there is a sequence point following a full expression, including an expression statement, which is what this is.

But we are not talking about C99!

Margit

Hi Margit, I’m losing interest in this thread.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-03 21:40

>>9
Oh shit, a real world example where talking of UB is more than just handwaving. You have to give some credit to the CompCert folks. It is a move in the right direction., albeit a clunky move.

Name: dubsmon 2015-03-03 22:35

gotta check em' all

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-03 23:55

Well what should we use instead? Java? .NET? I want to use something that's actually popular so other people may help me with the project, and fuck FIOC.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 6:14

Well what should we use instead? Hookers? Onaholes? I want to use something that's actually female so other people wont think I'm gay, and fuck femboys.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 6:23

>>24
┈┈┈┈┈┈▕▔╲ Anonymous liked this comment
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕▂▂▂
▂▂▂▂▂▂╱┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▔▔▔▔▔▔╲▂▕▂▂▂

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 6:26

>>23
OC oq

But seriously, if you want to eliminate UB there are a lot of things to pick from. JVM and CLR ecosystems are popular. F# is really nice, JVM probably has something.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 7:07

>>25
My fucking god, would it kill you to add a trigger warning? I was scrolling down quickly and I thought that was a fucking UML state diagram or whatever the fuck it's called for a second there and had a bad flashback. Just shoot me in the fucking head why don't you.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 8:21

>>27
I would shoot you if I could but you'll have to do it in my stead. I will continue to draw UML all day long, thank you very much.

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 13:05

requesting UML quine

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-04 16:54

>>29
/-------------\
| |
| |
V |
/-----------------\ |
| | | |
| V | |
| /-----\ | |
| | | | |
| | |------>---/
| \-----/ |
| |
| |
\-----------------/

Name: Anonymous 2015-03-05 2:44

/prog/ challenge #48488428828229394:
Prove or disprove P = NP in UML.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List