[OT] If you needed any more evidence that memory safety is the future...

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 14:50:18 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 14:02:40 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner 
> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> This is true for controlled experiments like the one I pointed 
>> to and this model works fine for those sciences where 
>> controlled experiments are applicable (e.g. physics).
>> For (soft) sciences where human behaviour is a factor - and it 
>> usually is one you cannot reliably control - using 
>> quasi-experiments with a high sample size is a generally 
>> accepted practice to accumulate empirical data.
>
> Right, but that's why "soft" sciences that use any "soft" 
> version of the empirical method, have no true claim to being 
> actual sciences.

That is an opinion, though; same as my initial position that 
enough empirical data about whether people in memory safe 
languages (but where your safe code can call hidden unsafe code 
without you knowing it) actually end up creating memory safe 
programs could provide enough foundation to exclaim "I told you 
so" if it turns out that the discrepancy is significant enough 
(what significant means in this context is, of course, another 
opinion).

> And it's why whenever you don't like an economist's opinion, 
> you can easily find another with the opposite opinion and his 
> own model.

I'm not an economist and can neither speak to the assumptions in 
this, nor the conclusion.

>
> There are other sane approaches for "soft" sciences where 
> (controlled) experiments aren't possible:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology#Origin_and_etymology
>
> Of course these methods have limits on what can be inferred, 
> whereas with models tuned onto garbage historical statistics 
> you can keep publishing to scientific journals forever, and 
> never reach any incontestable conclusion.

Thank you, I'll put praxeology on my list of things to read up on.