I was merely reiterating a common (and I think sensible) point that we can't write proofs about things we don't have the computational resources to address or just plain don't realize are an issue. Both are very real challenges to using proofs about our software, and should be kept in mind when talking about the field.
The said, Im a proponent of everything from proofs about abstract algorithm properties to basic model checking on a spec to using formal methods to extract a program with guaranteed propertied from a formal spec we've written proofs about in something like Coq.
DARPA funding HoTT research should clue anyone in that this stuff is useful.
I think we should work to prove software and that's an ongoing process, but it's hard to imagine using an algorithm without a proof of at least correctness and convergence.
I just see people talking about domains and saying, "We don't need proofs for software" like they learned literally nothing from OpenSSL last year. And perhaps they did not, but I think we all should recognize that the stakes are getting pretty high and it's time to stop pretending we're all supervillan-level software designers.
I was merely reiterating a common (and I think sensible) point that we can't write proofs about things we don't have the computational resources to address or just plain don't realize are an issue. Both are very real challenges to using proofs about our software, and should be kept in mind when talking about the field.
The said, Im a proponent of everything from proofs about abstract algorithm properties to basic model checking on a spec to using formal methods to extract a program with guaranteed propertied from a formal spec we've written proofs about in something like Coq.
DARPA funding HoTT research should clue anyone in that this stuff is useful.