Hacker News Reader

Comment by diogenes4 | Hacker News Reader

> If anything, you get goofy confusion about what things "are?" My go-to on this is always the "smart contract" -- which can be useful little bits of automated robot money moving code, but emphatically are neither "smart" nor "contracts."

They are contracts—just not legal contracts. One of many types of contracts in the world that are not legal constructs.

View on HN

> They are contracts—just not legal contracts

I think this proves op’s point of goofy confusion for what things are.

Like, what language is? I'm not sure i get the point.

Most contracts are intended to be enforceable by law, as far as I know. Which kind of non-enforceable contracts did you have in mind?

Software-interface contracts generally aren’t (cf. Design by Contract). The parent is correct insofar as the use of the word “contract” is not limited to contracts as defined by law.

Right, I mean, I've heard this use and I think it's kind of silly.

It's like calling a hopefully-completed-circuit in some device an "electric contract" or something like that.

It’s a contract (mutual agreement) between the client code and the implementation of the interface. The implementation fulfills certain obligations provided the client code fulfills certain other obligations. The interface defines what those obligations are. If the client code fails to meet its obligations, then the implementation of the interface isn’t bound to fulfill its obligations anymore either. The point is to think in terms of two parties, where the developer who is either using or implementing an interface takes on the role of one of the two contractual parties.

What's wrong with describing a hopefully-completed-circuit in some device as a contract?

Social contracts? Personal contracts? God-sworn oaths? Covenants? The legal system is just a small corner of the universe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com