While I strongly agree this doesn't seem to match the sentiment of the paper.
Which is prioritizing a lower barrier to entry for new programmers at the cost of safety checks that help prevent humans from making mistakes at runtime.
It seems to me if our conclusion is humans, no matter how skilled, are flawed, we should be willing to do absolutely anything to lower the barrier to entry except removing checks on correctness.
Which is prioritizing a lower barrier to entry for new programmers at the cost of safety checks that help prevent humans from making mistakes at runtime.
It seems to me if our conclusion is humans, no matter how skilled, are flawed, we should be willing to do absolutely anything to lower the barrier to entry except removing checks on correctness.