Moral assertions for code

[Aristos Queue]

A programming language that looks a lot like other programming languages but requires a very strict *moral* code. Please let me know if you think this is a feature that should be added to LabVIEW. It would not be hard.

 

https://github.com/munificent/vigil

 

"Infinitely more important than mere syntax and semantics are its addition of supreme moral vigilance. This is similar to contracts, but less legal and more medieval."

[crossrulz]

Can you be a little more specific of what would be done to LabVIEW?  It better not be deleting my code.  But it is sounding like a really old LabVIEW  feature where inputs to subVIs went through a range check and coerced if necessary.

Edited July 11, 2013 by crossrulz

[todd]

As long as the code that's deleted is BAD code.

[Aristos Queue]

 It better not be deleting my code. 

You dare oppose the cleansing fire? You are one of those who lack the stiff backbone to do what needs to be done to purify the code base! I will pass your name along to the Inquisition. Perhaps their tender ministries will help you see the error of your ways. Remember: He who does not cast the first stone commits the next sin!

 

To everyone else: Remember, anyone who opposes this plan is a sinner who needs correction. Let the fate of crossrulz be a lesson for ye. Repent of your sinful code... rejoice when it burns in the flames of "p4 obliterate". Support the moral reeducation of virtual instrumentation!

[crossrulz]

Hopefully my shield and chalice will protect me from the flaming arrows coming my way. 

I am known quite well around my former work place as one who will totally delete "working" code, totally rewrite it, and have it debugged and everything (more flexible, a lot easier to read, actually does work) in a tiny fraction of the time it took the original developer to write the atrocity they wrote.  I'm all for purification. I just want full control over the purification.

[Aristos Queue]

 I'm all for purification. I just want full control over the purification.

OH! I get it... you want to *join* the Inquisition! Well, that's a different question entirely. I believe they're taking applications. :-)

[Yair]

Someone clearly isn't following LAVA as closely as he's supposed to - http://lavag.org/topic/16444-new-programming-language-vigil/

 

Of course, LV itself is already pretty strict, with the exception of that one pesky feature which will freely change wire types automatically and actually decide *at run-time* to run a completely different function from the one that's actually on the diagram. Maybe that feature set should be removed from the language.

[ShaunR]

Of course, LV itself is already pretty strict, with the exception of that one pesky feature which will freely change wire types automatically and actually decide *at run-time* to run a completely different function from the one that's actually on the diagram. Maybe that feature set should be removed from the language.

+1. There was no such thing as a run-time error until that came in

[Aristos Queue]

Someone clearly isn't following LAVA as closely as he's supposed to - http://lavag.org/topic/16444-new-programming-language-vigil/

 

Of course, LV itself is already pretty strict, with the exception of that one pesky feature which will freely change wire types automatically and actually decide *at run-time* to run a completely different function from the one that's actually on the diagram. Maybe that feature set should be removed from the language.

I agree. Damn the DAQ driver with its inheritance hierarchy of functions! Curse the evil VI Server! I say we remove all the property nodes and invoke nodes. GPIB and static user interfaces, the way God intended!