<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Falsification View of Success Typing · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1502.01278/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1502.01278/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Falsification View of Success Typing — mentioned by yorwba</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16635646</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1502.01278:16635646</guid><pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 05:11:15 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;When you&amp;#x27;re having trouble justifying at compile time that a property holds, it&amp;#x27;s not always because you don&amp;#x27;t know why it holds, but frequently a problem with the type system you have to write the justification in. Some type systems are so limited that you can&amp;#x27;t even express the conditions under which the property holds, let alone prove them. Others are powerful enough to prove anything, but that makes type inference intractable, because the inferencer might have to prove arbitrary theorems. The advantage of dynamically typed languages is that you are not glued to one specific proof language…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1502.01278/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.PL</category></item></channel></rss>
