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
|