> I work for a FAANG but I’m not going to say which one. You or a relative are, with almost 100% certainty, relying on code written to that philosophy, by me, daily and widely.
Cool story bro.
Like, even interpreted maximally charitably, your statement still doesn’t provide GP’s requested published code. Not “take my word for it” ostensibly deployed software—code; the discussion here is about code constructs for modeling invariants, not solely about runtime behavior.
I’d be interested to see that code discussed in context of the blog post GP linked, which seems to make a compelling argument.
I am enjoined from providing that, and it’d be idiotic to risk my career for an HN ****-measuring contest. If one can’t understand these concepts without example code then this probably isn’t a discussion one can meaningfully contribute to.
Not being able to envision how it is in fact possible to write code with these invariants encoded in the type system is a fundamental fault in one’s ability to reason about this topic, and software correctness in general, in the first place.
> Not being able to envision how it is in fact possible to write code with these invariants encoded in the type system is a fundamental fault in one’s ability to reason about this topic, and software correctness in general, in the first place.
Code proving that it’s possible to avoid branching into an abort (the concept, not necessarily the syscall) was not what the original GP requested. Nor was a copy of your employer’s IP. Published examples which demonstrate how real-world code which intentionally calls panic() could be better written otherwise was my interpretation of the request.
And I’m requesting that, too, because I am interested in learning more about it! Please don’t assume I’m asking out of inexperience with safety critical systems, dick-measuring, faulty reasoning ability, or unfamiliarity with using type systems to avoid runtime errors (where—and this is the source of this discussion—practical and appropriate). If you work on your tone, that would make it much easier to have educating discussions in contexts like this.
Cool story bro.
Like, even interpreted maximally charitably, your statement still doesn’t provide GP’s requested published code. Not “take my word for it” ostensibly deployed software—code; the discussion here is about code constructs for modeling invariants, not solely about runtime behavior.
I’d be interested to see that code discussed in context of the blog post GP linked, which seems to make a compelling argument.