From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <004001cadd84$7254c4a0$56fe4de0$@gmail.com>
References: <20100416115756.GA1107@polynum.com>
	<op.va9bvqb5hipq0d@santucco.avp.ru>
	<4BC836D2020000CC000269E3@wlgw07.wlu.ca>
	<op.va9ega1whipq0d@santucco.avp.ru>
	<4BC855DF020000CC00026A46@wlgw07.wlu.ca>
	<004001cadd84$7254c4a0$56fe4de0$@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:05:11 -0800
Message-ID: <s2g6e35c0621004161005l98187407u6f0b9166aa89e4aa@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jack Johnson <knapjack@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] TeX: hurrah!
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0462cc2a-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Patrick Kelly <kameo76890@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> Object-Orientation reduces static provability.

True (or true enough)?

Not to engender a flame war, but my gut says there must be some
Eiffel, Smalltalk, and LISP folk out there who are big on provability,
but I can imagine that there's a case out there for saying not all OO
implementations are the same.

Is this a G=F6del question? How do you prove OO reduces static provability?

I'm totally OK with a "true enough" response like the measured
complexity introduced makes it more problematic to determine static
provability (as I talk out my ass).

-Jack