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

> 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.


The Algol 68 committee took the other view, with one important twist:
the language report was written in a very formal style, including as
thorough a description of the method of description, but the committee
also sponsored a book to teach the language to programmers quickly and
easily (the Informal Introduction, a masterpiece IMHO). Most people
use the Informal as their reference but it gives them the grounding of
understanding the Report. It helps that Algol 68 is a very uniform
language with very few odd constraints.


> In the real world, contracts are not written in Esperanto, despite the
> theoretical advantages of doing so.


ROTFL. You strangle yourself with your own argument! Have you read
any of the legalese in big commercial contracts recently - only the
lawyers retained by each side actually understand it, the signatories
just take the word of their lawyers that it means what they want and
will stand up in court. Law (English or American) is a perfect
example of specifications understood only by the insiders.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Lloyd Email: Dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk
Oxford and Cambridge Compilers Ltd Phone: (44) 1223 572074
55 Brampton Rd, Cambridge CB1 3HJ, UK
--

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