วีดีโอ

Yeah 1 x 1 is just having "one of one thing" which is not a hard concept to for us to think about and as an argument it's fine. But it relies on other concepts so if we wanted to press it you can always ask: What's 2? What does "going into" actually mean? It's an exercise in first principles. Providing a foundation as I'm doing in the vid is not even how a formal computerized proof would normally be written, your approach could work just fine because the foundation it needs is already in the library.

Thanks for the comment, Kanjicoder. You point to a legitimate concern in Formal Verification which is something called the "Trusted Computing Base". For instance we might say for a certain result to trust this program to the extent we trust the spec, the compiler, the prover core, and the hardware. That sounds like trusting a lot, but for practical purposes most of those things are pretty well battle-tested. It's a question of what level of confidence can we achieve, and is it worth the investment - an engineering tradeoff like any other. AWS case studies have great examples of navigating that. For a treatment on what it takes to theoretical cover every link in the chain, the Deep Spec project is a good example. deepspec.org/page/Research

@ElinaMäkinen-k6f That's a great question, and in a sense it's happening just slower than we'd like. Languages like TypeScript have expressivity in types that would have seemed academic not mainstream 15 years ago. I find the newer prover Lean more accessible than Coq and Isabelle. Dafny even more so for "normal" coding. Fizzbee aims to be a friendlier modeling language than TLA+. But yeah, a long way to go. Research goals tend to reward complexity and novelty, we've got some hard design problems to distill it into the right package.

Sorry, it’s not clear what you’re asking.

@craftvscruft8060 lol i need adult supervision on a project

Oh, I think at the time I was using WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux) w/ Windows Terminal. Nowadays I use OSX with iTerm2.

Thanks @Maedas, this is very helpful feedback! I've been making some more advanced content this year and I'm not always very good abount saying what knowledge it depends on. I'll try and improve that going forward. I'm linking my playlist of refactoring videos and the older ones are more focused on my thought process as it occurs rather than these new techniques for tool support. Better yet, some teacher's that I look up to on this are Arlo Beshee (e.g. "Mastering Legacy Code Incrementally" talk) and Emily Bache (channel @EmilyBache-tech-coach). Cheers! th-cam.com/play/PLRe4i06eNAcDY4XjMfyEMK6hjnoIOpqk2.html

Oh, and the specific list of rules you're asking about were the same ones that I wrote in the Comby UI while inspecting the code in 9:45 - 13:00, if that helps at all. Mostly Boolean Logic simplification - might be a good topic for a followup video.

@@craftvscruft8060 Yeah the list is no problem, I saw and understood what you did I just have no idea how you came to the choices you did while doing it; If I had to build something like that it would take me 30 min and I would be very unsure about my methodology, kind of just guessing/looking at articles/asking around. A follow up on Boolean Logic simplification sounds lovely <3 I have basically a year and a half into a bachelors degree in Comp Sci but am sadly a bit averse to complex terminology; I feel a lot of jargon is thrown around unnecessarily so I tend to only learn it when I have a legitimate reason to. Given that, I do think that there is a niche on TH-cam of intermediate/advanced videos with simple terminology that really needs more creators, and this video at least was spot on there so highly enjoyable.

@@craftvscruft8060 thank you for taking my feedback correctly, I don't mean to be negative and am just straightforward in general 😅 Thank you, I'll check the playlist and the names out <3 An ending feedback also would be that the sceenshare is a bit bright; it's not something that will hinder me watching but is at the upper end of what my eyes tolerate, so I wonder if it would be possible to make it more... appealing? to dark mode users. I hope you understand what I mean and again it's very optional, but might be beneficial. Hope you have a good day :)

Ray-Factor does have a ring to it :) I see refactoring as something where the target depends on your current goals, so I don't know if it'll ever be quite as fire-and-forget as formatting/linting. But these kinds of workflows - express one intention and 30 steps unfold - I think that's very possible. A major limiting factor is that our mainstream languages are not verification-friendly, so we either climb that analysis mountain or write more code in provable languages. Purely-functional languages might have a new secret weapon.

Absolutely, it's one of those moments when you realize you've learned the same concept twice for different reasons, it opens up possibilities. I think compiler passes are another example of this concept, semantics-preserving tree transformations. So some of the work on certified compilers should be applicable to refactoring

Great to hear from you, Emily. I think TripService kata is next! For everyone else, her channel is a great source of more refactoring content. www.youtube.com/@EmilyBache-tech-coach

Yep! As we've discussed that's part of what started me down this path. I'm still not sure what the overall workflow looks like but it seems like promising area for LLMs + Tools. mender.ai/blog/turbo-refactoring

Absolutely, I felt the same way. People like them and Arlo Belshee, Marianne Bellotti, Chelsea Troy for instance not only showed me skills, they helped me understand my identity. Such a powerful thing.

That's a really common issue, and nopilot.dev will also follow the local model use case. For now, I find the r/LocalLLaMA subreddit very helpful for that type of model news. The coding models are becoming usable - especially on machines that can run the bigger ones

I'm using ollama locally and privategpt looks promising too!

@@hypergraphic I'm using anythingLLM, it's has an amazing rag

@@hypergraphic Great to hear, I'll be writing about the setups people are using, let me know if you find a particular local model is working well

Thanks for watching, Jarin! I don't evaluate tools in their capacity to give medical advice because I'm not a qualified medical researcher. This channel is about Software Engineering, my area of expertise. Peer reviewed studies are being done on LLMs in medicine, though I'm not aware of any formal evaluation of this product. The reason I would expect a different result a year later is that the company was made aware of the bug so it would be common practice to fix it. I was also reminded of this case due to a legal dispute involving an airline denying responsibility for what their support chatbot told a customer, covered in my episode "AI Accountability Shield" last month. th-cam.com/video/HYdzHP1eaCs/w-d-xo.html

@@craftvscruft8060 oh that's cool, I didn't know that was the case. I quickly browsed through your channel and you should make some software or a website strictly using chatgpt only with some simple and complex functions included. Id watch that.

@craftvscruft8060, that's a misguided perspective. Instead of limiting the tool to basic functions, consider using it for its intended purpose. It's like using a TI-84 calculator solely for addition and then claiming it's not worth the price because you aren't taking advantage of its advanced features.

Thanks, Steve! Yes I think there is a powerful pattern here for as an LLM bridge to DSLs that are readable by domain experts but hard for them to precisely write. DSLs are still notoriously hard to get right but I think this could help them along if we don't forgo the quality of the abstraction

Awesome! I was also surprised at how relevant some of her points were to daily dev life

Thanks, Steve! I see some surprising parallels between formal methods and concept of DSLs you introduced me too way back when. I'll need to think of how to describe it but something to do with getting leverage out of clearly modeling a problem.

Also your point of this being a leadership problem is 100% accurate and pertains not only to corporate America but to all societal structures including governance. Power structures across the board result in similar actions and is exactly why giving government more more more of everything does nothing generally except for exasperated preexisting problems. This is not a corporation phenomenon, it is a human psychological power dynamics phenomenon and will almost certainly be with us as a species in perpetuity

Thanks for the thoughtful response, apple number, I have a couple reactions. Wholeheartedly agree with "No one is safe, so plan accordingly" - that's probably my central message here as well. "Forgive me for not caring when someone who makes a lot of money [...] finds themselves between a rock and a hard spot" Maybe I've misunderstood but I feel like you might be casting casual judgement on an extremely large and varied group if you're implying no one in entire tech sector (or even beyond) would deserve sympathy upon being laid off. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people and we can't make blanket assumptions about the options they had to do better. Of course we're not too worried about the L6 teamleads but that's beside the point.

@@apple1231230 "This is not a corporation phenomenon, it is a human psychological power dynamics phenomenon" I agree with this except where it might imply we can't improve. If we have a natural tendency to organize in power structures and then mistreat eachother that makes it all the more important learn how to temper the impact, like we would do with any other force universal even gravity. That's the philosophical argument and the empirical one is that for almost any kind of worker mistreatment we could find an example of a well-performing company that chooses to do it less. In the case of layoffs Toyota has maintained none for full-time employees for 80 years, right?

@@craftvscruft8060 I agree with you saying not to make blanket statements, and everyone has their own unique scenarios. I'm specifically refering to people who for all intents and purposes, (own a house at a good rate, make high salaries, no familial trauma and/or expensive medical needs they're having to deal with, decent mental state, and generally well off etc) are well off but still find themselves in a terrible spot upon being layed off, which is a lot of people. you can make excuses to varying degrees of validity for every problem in ones life, but at the end of the day many people would find themselves in a major pickle if laid off unexpectedly shearly for being terrible with personal finance. i don't feel bad for these people, which i would argue is probably the majority in this situation, assuming were talking corporate lay offs, not factory workers at amazon. as for your second reply i wholeheartedly agree. Im actually a closeted optimist. I think companies should and can do better, but realistically many don't, so one should plan for the worst and look for the best. If you ever find yourself privleged enough to own a company, as i hope to in the future, strive to make it a fair and valuable place to work. My philosophy will be radical transparency. We'll see how that goes.

Sounds like a mess glad you're on your feet thanks for the story from the trenches

Yeah it was honestly strange and if I knew them I might ask what life experience gave them the urge to jump to such a confident conclusion about a stranger in another country in defense of an as yet unnamed company. Execs may need to make snap decisions sometimes but you don't need to go out of your way to do it on your time off! Could've asked a question. I try to resist getting confrontational but that sort of thing seems important to push back on, because who knows when the next time some hiring manager like them is going to discount a candidate for getting laid off?

Thanks for watching, Fin! Yes, I'm still new to this but it seems like at least it would have been more idiomatic Dafny to use "nat" or maybe a more specialized: type Quality = n: nat | n <= 80 The built in natural number type itself is really just: type nat = n: int | 0 <= n But as you point out it doesn't handle both bounds, you'd still need the pre/post conditions to check it based on the name. If I wanted to model it directly in Dafny's type constructs I think there are both OOP and FP ways: inheritance (so one Item subclass always returns 80) or even Algebraic Data Types type Quality = n: nat | n <= 50 datatype Item = Sulfuras | Item(name: string, sellIn: int, quality: Quality) Maybe a weird use of ADTs but now no behavior about Sulfuras needs to be asserted because it has no properties to change. Good luck refactoring our way there though :)

Great ideas, Nitsan. Yes, in similar ways that we can discover gaps in tests we can find gaps in specs ("underspecification"), those include review and mutation testing. Formal verification doesn't remove the need for any trust, just moves it to very well-defined areas - any problems must be either in the spec or the prover itself. Often that's a good tradeoff, I see it as a judgement call similar to filling out a test pyramid. Small steps are great as always. In a way I did develop the replacement incrementally because I specified it as equivalent for one item type at a time, but a better way to show that could have been to make the original implementation delegate to the new one for each case as I went. Since you've done TDD training you'd likely have more thoughts about the best ways to present these concepts, look forward to talking more.

Thanks, Nitsan! You should come on the channel sometime, maybe think about a topic you'd like