Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Right. So if I write a pure function (i.e., some code that takes some 
> input and returns some output but does nothing else - aside from maybe 
> allocating memory), it is impossible to tell anything about this 
> function other than how long it's going to take and how much memory it's 
> going to eat?

It's slightly worse than that.  You can only *verify* a guess for the 
time/space consumption for each input you test.  It's always possible 
that the program could be entirely correct but exceed these bounds.  And 
really this is only possible through sort of a "cheat" -- there's not 
any interesting static analysis going on anywhere in this.

Doesn't mean static analysis can't be useful in practice though.

Post a reply to this message