<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Challenge on Hillel Wayne</title>
    <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/tags/challenge/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Challenge on Hillel Wayne</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    
	<atom:link href="https://www.hillelwayne.com/tags/challenge/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    
    
    <item>
      <title>The Great Theorem Prover Showdown</title>
      <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/theorem-prover-showdown/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/theorem-prover-showdown/</guid>
      <description>Functional programming and immutability are hot right now. On one hand, this is pretty great as there&amp;rsquo;s lots of nice things about functional programming. On the other hand, people get a little overzealous and start claiming that imperative code is unnatural or that purity is always preferable to mutation.
I think that the appropriate paradigm is heavily dependent on context, but a lot of people speak in universals. I keep hearing that it&amp;rsquo;s easier to analyze pure functional code than mutable imperative code.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>