Of course it's possible, there are ways to guarantee that and to prove that. That's an area of ongoing research. E.g. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-36594-2_...
Though I've said just one thing - you can't expect that a GET query would be idempotent. You may only hope.
It's such an off-the-wall connection I can hardly refute it: it's like we're talking about toasters and you dived into talking about CRISPR because I said the word "crispy". If anything it'd imply you're not familiar with CRISPR or toasters.
> Though I've said just one thing - you can't expect that a GET query would be idempotent. You may only hope.
I guess you should look up what it means to expect something. In the context of your sentence hope and expect are synonymous*, so maybe you meant you can't guarantee?
And even ignoring that mistake, it's not really useful to say "You can't be sure something doesn't follow guidance, you can only expect it" because that's tautological. Guidance in and of itself doesn't have any way to assert direct influence on an implementation, that's why it's literally called guide·ance.
*before you use that to dive into a grammatical diversion, that is not generally the case, only specifically in your use.
Let's assume we make a remote call with a list of VM instructions for a virtual machine which has no access to any I/O. Now we only need to prove the correctness of the answer. Whatever you do on the remote side, you won't be able to make your computation impure. Yes, you still may write logs or sleep but it won't break referential transparency, there will be no way to return two different accepted results for the same inputs.
You may even have I/O in some very limited form.
You don't have to supply the code.
If you don't agree, show me side effects in EVM.
> In the context of your sentence hope and expect are synonymous
Only in your eyes.
Anyway, I've been saying that REST is too unformal and weak-typed.
You implicitly revised your previous statements, and the revised point is even further off base (I mean, now you're showing you don't know the difference between REST and HTTP verbs?)
At some point just take it as a learning experience that non-sequitur about verifiable computing don't have any of the "shock and awe" on HN that they might on and your Facebook wall...
You should stick to things you understand if you insist on making authoritative statements.
-
By the way: language doesn't only work "in my eyes", words have meaning, learn those meanings before you use them.
> You should stick to things you understand
Ok. We don't need VC, for practical purposes we may do a lot of contract enforcement at the tooling level, like if we generate code from an IDL, we may restrict access to various APIs, enforce purity and totality.
> you don't know the difference between REST and HTTP verbs?
It doesn't matter if you talk about REST or HTTP, nothing guarantees "idempotence" of GET. Also the discussion was in the context of REST as something opposed to RPC.
> learn those meanings before you use them.
You command too much.
Depending on your model it can be proven.
Electricity consumption won't be a side effect in any reasonable model.
Surely this is a troll...
If fact the latter is better, because it may be somehow enforced by cogen if you code-generate into a language which may, for example, enforce purity or totality.
And the whole story about "REST not being an RPC" or "there is purity/idempotence/whatever in REST because RFC says that GETs are pure/idempotent/whatever" makes very little sense.
At the same time I'm saying that it's total bullshit when someone says that it's not possible to enforce lack of side effects (like in referential transparency) during a remote call.