Comments by "xybersurfer" (@xybersurfer) on "Computer Science ∩ Mathematics (Type Theory) - Computerphile" video.

  1. if you agree with the basic rules of the system being true. then you agree anything built using that system being true. it's really that simple
    3
  2. no. you would have to create a proof to have a program (proofs are programs). and proving in Coq is much harder than conventional programming
    3
  3. c# deals with types. but it does not directly deal with type theory. c# is weakly typed because because it is possible to get type errors at runtime. languages like haskell are strongly typed but they don't deal completely with type theory. languages like Coq and Agda deal directly with type theory
    2
  4. even though i'm familiar with the stuff. i completely agree
    1
  5. people can make errors in thinking too. the proofs in Coq are readable to humans. but i do agree that they don't give much insight
    1
  6. ​ FichDich InDemArsch InvalidCastException comes to mind (you can write code that casts an object to anything). NullReferenceException also comes to mind, although that is more of a design flaw where strings and objects are always nullable, that i last heard they would be fixing. it's not as bad as dynamic languages like JavaScript though. i use .NET languages like C# regularly
    1
  7.  FichDich InDemArsch  JavaScript's aggressive type coercion is also well defined, but that doesn't make it type safe. i agree that an exception at runtime is better, than none at all (i absolutely hate dealing with silent errors. in fact i'm dealing with one right now!). but, i would prefer even more to be prevented from that mistake before runtime, if it's practical
    1
  8.  FichDich InDemArsch  language definition and type safety, are not the same concept
    1
  9. i'm curious. what don't you like about set theory?
    1
  10. you mean like when people try to shoe horn everything into it and try to explain everything in terms of sets? that would be something that has bothered me
    1