I think whichever one is used, there needs to be a way to enforce what's written.
If I say "use jq instead of writing a python script to parse json" it should never write adhoc python scripts to parse json. Yet that constantly happens to me anyway.
Treat it like any other software system: rules that must not be violated are enforced by static type-checking or a trusted runtime monitor. There’s no other option.
You absolutely can, that’s what your harness is for. You don’t need your environment to “reason” about things when deterministic tools exist - You have a really fancy hammer, but that doesn’t make everything a nail.
But what if we used the fancy hammer to change the shape of everything to be a nail? And what if we build the handle of the fancy hammer with a fancy hammer? With all of this we could build a very good fancy hammer manufacturing company.
spike021 · · focus · HN ↗
If I say "use jq instead of writing a python script to parse json" it should never write adhoc python scripts to parse json. Yet that constantly happens to me anyway.
jkhdigital · · focus · HN ↗
koolba · · focus · HN ↗
Otherwise you can get a python one liner that execs a different script engine.
devmor · · focus · HN ↗
TZubiri · · focus · HN ↗