Hacker News Reader

Comment by electronvolt | Hacker News Reader

I'd agree, and the article basically says the same thing--the language is too expressive, and therefore hard to analyze. I don't know that much about the Ether devs, but I'd expect it just didn't occur to them--even among PL folks, knowledge & experience with something like coq is somewhat rare unless you went to the right undergrad or grad school. Especially if you weren't keeping up with the latest research in the last ~5-10 years or so.

Something like Coq with a few primitives to represent interacting with the Ether network, and an optimizing, verified cross compiler would have been a perfect fit for this sort of thing, in my opinion. It's a shame that they didn't go that route, the extra dev time to get it right probably wouldn't have been equivalent to 200+ dev-years of cost (~31 million).

View on HN

> I don't know that much about the Ether devs, but I'd expect it just didn't occur to them--even among PL folks, knowledge & experience with something like coq is somewhat rare unless you went to the right undergrad or grad school. Especially if you weren't keeping up with the latest research in the last ~5-10 years or so.

Hmm, you'd think they'd know about languages like Haskell though.

I don't think it would be practical to expect developers to write verified code anyway; it's still far too challenging in general. Having a language where you could optionally formally verify the code would have been useful though.

> Something like Coq with a few primitives to represent interacting with the Ether network, and an optimizing, verified cross compiler would have been a perfect fit for this sort of thing, in my opinion

You wouldn't think something like Coq with a few primitives would make some contracts difficult to write?

Late response, but: coq has the optional verification that you're proposing. :)

In my experience, Coq is not significantly harder than OCaml to write unverified code in. It's missing some nice shorthand syntax, but other than that it feels pretty similar.

With coq, the main challenge is expressing things that are meant to "run forever" (any truly unbounded recursion)--but my understanding is that would be forced to halt when it ran out of ether (so it's bounded anyways, and if you needed to you could probably explicitly hand that fact to the compiler)--and I think you probably don't want something to loop indefinitely if each iteration costs ether.

The main issues with coq that I think you'd crop up against are things that a good optimizer/compiler could probably help with (e.x. things like the fact that integers are naively represented as cons cells, so addition is O(n) and multiplication is worse). However, I haven't written any smart contracts, so it's definitely possible I'm missing something obvious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com