Re: Are these all really true ?

jthill@netcom.com (Jim Hill)
Thu, 12 Oct 1995 02:04:45 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[23 earlier articles]
Re: Are these all really true ? scott@infoadv.mn.org (Scott Nicol) (1995-10-02)
Re: Are these all really true ? anton@complang.tuwien.ac.at (1995-10-02)
Re: Are these all really true ? ok@cs.rmit.edu.au (1995-10-03)
Re: Are these all really true ? preston@tera.com (1995-10-16)
Re: Are these all really true ? bill@amber.ssd.hcsc.com (1995-10-04)
Re: Are these all really true ? blume@nordica.cs.princeton.edu (1995-10-11)
Re: Are these all really true ? jthill@netcom.com (1995-10-12)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: jthill@netcom.com (Jim Hill)
Keywords: specification
Organization: biological <-- hey! a one-word oxymoron!
References: 95-09-076 95-09-134 95-10-046
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 02:04:45 GMT

ok@cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) wrote:


>A particularly important point about formal specifications is that they
>can be type checked, scope checked, cross-referenced, and so on


How is this different from "rapid prototyping" if I can divorce that term
from some of its buzzword connotations? Seems to me that any
specification you can do all that to, and "may even be executable" is
written in a programming language.


Jim
--
Jim Hill Contents public domain and worth $.02 more than you paid.
jthill@netcom.com PGPrint: 6B 85 76 D1 EF BA 2C 78 12 25 8A 5A BF F3 37 7E
--

Post a followup to this message

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