"In fact, it's the exact opposite: every time a Java programmer compiles their code, they are formally verifying that their program is correct. The only Java programmers who don't prove their programs are correct are those few who've never compiled their code."
I don't think it's reasonable to use all of "prove", "their programs" and "correct" there. Weakening or qualifying any of those could produce a statement I emphatically agree with.
> Weakening or qualifying any of those could produce a statement I emphatically agree with.
My qualification was meant to be "according to the formal systems definition of the words 'prove', 'correct', etc., which was supposed to be applied to consistent systems; yet Java is inconsistent".
Well, I'd actually say that all languages are consistent, it's only particular interpretations of the encodings that may be inconsistent, but that's another discussion ;)
Ah, yeah, when you say you're proving something I think it's worth it to be specific about what, and extra explicit when it differs from the expectations of the audience. There's a lot of "correctness" as used by... anyone not focused on formal systems that is missed by your usage, I think.
I don't think it's reasonable to use all of "prove", "their programs" and "correct" there. Weakening or qualifying any of those could produce a statement I emphatically agree with.