Re: reusing ADT, not implementation (was Re: How should size ... ?)

preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (Preston Briggs)
Fri, 5 Nov 1993 06:46:50 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
How should size of program grow with size of problem? jvn@fermi.clas.virginia.edu (Julian V. Noble) (1993-10-28)
reusing ADT, not implementation (was Re: How should size ... ?) jejones@microware.com (1993-11-04)
Re: reusing ADT, not implementation (was Re: How should size ... ?) preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1993-11-05)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (Preston Briggs)
Keywords: OOP, design, bibliography
Organization: Rice University, Houston
References: 93-10-136 93-11-037
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 06:46:50 GMT

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Indeed, there are a significant number of people who think that once you
>strip away the OOH (Object-Oriented Hype), being able to reuse
>*interfaces* is much more important than being able to reuse code.


jejones@microware.com (James Jones) writes:
>Sounds like what Schwartz et al. (Dewar, perhaps?) did with SETL, which
>would let you fine tune the implementation of particular instances of its
>basic notions (set, relation, etc.) once you had the code working


Absolutely. The best reference to this approach is


    title="Programming by Refinement, as Exemplified by the {SETL}
                                  Representation Sublanguage",
    author="Robert B. K. Dewar and Arthur Grand and Ssu-Cheng Liu and
                                  Jacob T. Schwartz and Edmond Schonberg",
    journal=toplas,
    year=1979,
    month=jul,
    volume=1,
    number=1,
    pages="27--49"


Really interesting ideas.
Preston Briggs
--

Post a followup to this message

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