|
Top-level
 @david_chisnall I think that instead of making systems that use an exacting, very precise, unambiguous language (which really doesn't exist in reality anyway) that you then force everybody in the whole world to learn so they can communicate with computers … … why not just make computers not so utterly god-damned fragile that the slightest error makes things get broken and hard? Make your technology antifragile instead of making people adapt to tech. Because the latter is not gonna happen. 3 comments
@xdydx @david_chisnall No, he literally outlined in great length and detail why **HE** doesn't want to make such systems. There's a difference. I note, for example, despite programmers purportedly using a very precise, unambiguous language to do their jobs, that idiot bugs are all over the place in the software they make to the point that I can't go through a day without hitting a dozen of them. How's that fragile system made with precise unambiguous language working out for all y'all? @xdydx @david_chisnall Here's today's example of an idiot bug in this great, very precisely-written technology: |
Gregory's Server
@zdl @david_chisnall
He literally just outlined, in great length and detail, why you do not want this to be the case.
If anything, we have made computers too fault tolerant.
Good technology fails gracefully, quickly and correctly.