unboxed_type

6 ms·

1.
by unboxed_type 7y ago
What is a "promotion committee"? By saying promotion, are you talking about transitioning from "engineer level 1" to "engineer level 2" kind of thing? I wonder if your advice can be applied in non-google settin
2.
by unboxed_type 8y ago
Are you talking about CertiCoq project? It is not ready yet and not clear when will be. [1] https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/certicoq/
3.
Ivy language(microsoft.github.io)
3 points by unboxed_type 8y ago|0 comments
4.
by unboxed_type 8y ago
Listen to this wise man, he knows what is speaking about.
5.
by unboxed_type 8y ago
True. It is worth pointing out that Isabelle/HOL does not have dependent types in its underlying logic making framework building a (much?) harder work.
6.
by unboxed_type 8y ago
Despite being based on semi-functional programming language Scala, I found no evidence that the language AxLang has anything to do with formal verification. I may be wrong, but what I see now is lots of promises without any details.
7.
by unboxed_type 8y ago
GitHub feels so much like some social network site. It has too many distraction factors for any thinking person, that's why I hate it. Bitbucket is a real thing. Go get it, stop being a GitHub hipster today!
8.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
Whats the business model behind that kind of activity?
9.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
Authentication of a write operation is not the only problem a blockchain system solves. Using a public blockchain, for example, you are assured that: 0) all writes are authenticated 1) all the data written will be accessible to anyone Now c
10.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
Interesting point, thanks for sharing. But, anyway: What incentives do those mirroring nodes have to store regular data blobs and process requests from clients? Who will decide the privilege to be such a 'mirroring node'. The orig
11.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
Thanks for that quote!
12.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
>But of course, if this is the case, then it begs the >question of why a blockchain is even needed. Just use a >shared database. Two issues regarding your second observation. 1) A change that requires a consensus among some non-t
13.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
I wonder how one may prove that a thing originates from some specific place? I mean, you have to have some kind of trusted by all parties external observer who will assure that fact. Am I wrong here?
14.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
If a supplier is running its own blockchain, then it really makes little sense. But to gain real trust of its clients, supplier will actually put it on a public blockchain. Only then external experts will say: "yeah, this supplier is r
15.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
Why not to use already running platforms like Ethereum where all those incentive issues are already solved?
16.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
By using such BC solution, you can be sure that you eat a fish caught by some certified supplier and not by some poachers. A certifying body is assumed to check ethical questions.
17.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
Most probably because of a lack of functional programming mindset.
18.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
When you have a need to establish some business procedure between different parties that do not trust each other, smart contracts might be very useful. No other database is able to provide guarantees/features comparable to the public b
19.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
It is a bit out of topic, but anyway: Is it possible to defend a PhD thesis without taking a graduate program at all? Imagine an industry researcher without a PhD degree who is willing to obtain one.
20.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
Oh, sorry for that, the question was misunderstood. I presume that a user-level contract language like Simplicity is going to be translated into low-level byte code like EVM. That low-level code is what gets executed on the blockchain. Peop
21.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
I can program a contract that can be parameterized with an address of some other sub-contract (then, say, store it in variable), which I call to do some particular logic. If I change that sub-contract address, I can effectively change my co
22.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
> it's arguably better to work from a framework which guarantees that it won't be by construction... rather than attempting a game-of-operation where minor modifications to your program might seemingly randomly knock into unde
23.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
>In fact I don't even understand why a blockchain language must emphasize provability. For two reasons: 1) A smart contract can not be changed in a BC after deployment, so it has to be correct up-front (I am not sure if this fact is
24.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
It is far from solid and yet it is easy to understand (modulo corner cases) . I doubt that lambda-calculus-like language will take over it just because it gives one an ability to prove correctness properties in Coq.
25.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
I have nothing to say about the language (I gave up reading those cumbersome slides), but I am really amazed that you expect someone to like that presentation! :)
26.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
It is hard to imagine that a proof-assistant will be used as a tool for checking smart-contract correctness due to a lack of sufficiently trained personal. What this BC community is really need is a suitable programming language which will
27.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
I do appreciate the author's attempt to create a new worthy language really, I do a research on this topic myself. What concerns me is that the presented language is not suitable for any practical programming. Even for the most simple
28.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
And what do they call mathematics. Is it about machine learning/big data specialists?
29.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
Sounds interesting. Reminds me "Artifacts Evaluated" stamp.
30.
by unboxed_type 9y ago
Very interesting idea, clearly explained use-cases, thanks!

More ›