Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Formatting of Language LRMs seimarao@gmail.com (Seima Rao) (2014-06-17) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs lpsantil@gmail.com (lpsantil@gmail.com) (2014-06-20) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-06-20) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-06-21) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2014-06-21) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs Pidgeot18@verizon.net.invalid (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIENyYW5tZXIg8J+Qpw==?=) (2014-06-22) |
| Re: VWG and K, was Formatting of Language LRMs ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-06-22) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs mertesthomas@gmail.com (2014-06-30) |
| RE: Formatting of Language LRMs costello@mitre.org (Costello, Roger L.) (2014-07-03) |
| Re: Formatting of Language LRMs ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-07-03) |
| Re: syntax checkers, was Formatting of Language LRMs gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-07-04) |
| Re: executable semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs wclodius@earthlink.net (2014-07-04) |
| [3 later articles] |
| From: | =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIENyYW5tZXIg8J+Qpw==?= <Pidgeot18@verizon.net.invalid> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:12:50 -0500 |
| Organization: | A noiseless patient Spider |
| References: | 14-06-010 14-06-016 |
| Keywords: | standards |
| Posted-Date: | 22 Jun 2014 22:15:47 EDT |
On 6/20/2014 2:09 PM, Ivan Godard wrote:
> VWG is vastly superior to BNF because it provides a formal specification
> of semantics, in particular the type system, which cannot be expressed
> in BNF. Unfortunately formal reasoning about semantics is beyond many
> users. Stll IMO no other formal semantic notation (Denotational
> Semantics for example) is superior to VWG.
I did a bit of playing with K during a course a few years ago, and I
ended up getting the feeling that the start of the art in executable
semantics is such that we could start seeing languages written as
executable semantics in maybe 10-20 years or so. While I did have a very
large share of swearing and screaming at the tool for its deficiencies,
I did leave the course actually feeling like I would want to use K if I
had the chance, which is more than I can say for the few other attempts
I've had at using formal methods tooling (disclaimer: the professor of
said course led the development of K).
Link: <http://www.kframework.org/index.php/Main_Page>.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.