Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C)

Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
27 Feb 1996 16:28:29 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-02-22)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) gasser@ilw.agrl.ethz.ch (Laurent GASSER) (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) fabre@gr.osf.org (Christian Fabre) (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) hbaker@netcom.com (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) k2consult@aol.com (1996-02-26)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) anton@complang.tuwien.ac.at (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) blume@zayin.cs.princeton.edu (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) przemek@rrdjazz.nist.gov (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-03-01)
specifications (was Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (1996-03-01)
[11 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Feb 1996 16:28:29 -0500
Organization: SP Systems, Toronto
References: 96-02-187 96-02-226 96-02-234
Keywords: standards

jgm@CS.Cornell.EDU (Gregory Morrisett) writes:


> Providing a precise semantics for a language is not just something
> for the "theoriticians" to do -- it really provides the basis for a
> language -- a contract for both the implementors and the users...


Unfortunately, such contracts work much better if they are written in
a language that the implementors and the users can understand without
calling in a specialist to interpret for them. This is why the ANSI C
committee deliberately decided against formal specifications. The
fact that much of the audience for the contract cannot read formal
specs is regrettable, but it is a fact and it will not change any time
soon.


In the real world, contracts are not written in Esperanto, despite the
theoretical advantages of doing so.
--
Henry Spencer, henry@zoo.toronto.edu
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.