Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!umich!srvr1!cicada.engin.umich.edu!zarnuk
From: zarnuk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Steven Mccarthy)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Reuse and Abstraction (was: reu
Message-ID: <1990Jun2.035708.17718@caen.engin.umich.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 90 03:57:08 GMT
References: <19820@duke.cs.duke.edu> <12085@june.cs.washington.edu> <81111@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@caen.engin.umich.edu (CAEN Netnews)
Organization: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Lines: 19


>(Bruce Weide) writes: 
> [discussion about informal/rigorous/formal specs]... It's
>not that hard to say it rigorously, and (IMHO) no harder to say it
>formally than rigorously.  

Bruce, I agree with you in principle: it is not much harder 
_conceptually_ to cast "rigorous" specifications into "formal" 
notation, but it does require more _work_.  Worst of all,
most of the additional effort is "busy-work" symbol manipulation 
or fitting square pegs into round holes to express a simple 
concept in a language that does not support the concept directly.
(We Americans are just too impatient! :)  

As I see it, formal specifications cost more up front, but they
pay off in the long run.  They certainly take the guess-work out
of trying to figure out if/how you can you use a component.  

---Paul...