Re: Dijkstra gets it wrong [was: Re: D gets it right]
From: Chris Dollin (kers_at_hpl.hp.com)
Date: 03/17/04
- Next message: Thomas Gagné: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- Previous message: Ilja Preuß: "Re: implementing roles in OOP......"
- In reply to: Cristiano Sadun: "Re: Dijkstra gets it wrong [was: Re: D gets it right]"
- Next in thread: Michael Mendelsohn: "Re: Dijkstra gets it wrong [was: Re: D gets it right]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:13:14 +0000
Cristiano Sadun wrote:
> A programming language is a formal language associated to a formal
> machine specification.
For very liberal meanings for "machine" - you can give a programming
language a semantics with no hint of machineness about it, unless
your definition of "machine" includes higher-order non-strict functions.
[Mine doesn't.]
Of course, showing that a "real" implementation matches those semantics
is hard. Whether it's harder than showing that a "real" implementation
matches a "formal machine specification", I dunno.
-- Chris "have you ever read Milne and Strachey? my head exploded" Dollin C FAQs at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.c.html C welcome: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html
- Next message: Thomas Gagné: "Re: dynamic type checking - a pauline conversion?"
- Previous message: Ilja Preuß: "Re: implementing roles in OOP......"
- In reply to: Cristiano Sadun: "Re: Dijkstra gets it wrong [was: Re: D gets it right]"
- Next in thread: Michael Mendelsohn: "Re: Dijkstra gets it wrong [was: Re: D gets it right]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
