Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.jhu.edu!haven!ni.umd.edu!uc780.umd.edu!cs450a03
From: cs450a03@uc780.umd.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: RE: Formal definitions (Re: ada-c++ productivity)
Message-ID: <11APR91.19210188@uc780.umd.edu>
Date: 11 Apr 91 19:21:01 GMT
References: <1755@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <1991Apr11.214018.19443@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Sender: usenet@ni.umd.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: The University of Maryland University College
Lines: 32
Nntp-Posting-Host: uc780.umd.edu


>Programming languages, at least imperative languages, are constructed
>from statements, which say "do this, then this, etc.".  They don't
>say "achieve this goal", which is really the purpose of running a
>program.

eh?  imperative programming languages don't say "achieve this goal" ?

huh?

that's flat out contradictory.

I mean, if I say "sort this list" that's the sort of thing that an
imperative language does.  That's an equivalent statement to "make
this list sorted".

Maybe you don't like the levels of abstraction available to you in
some imperative languages?

>  [example of navigating city streets]

It is perfectly valid imperative programming practice to say things
like:

    move such-and-such (distance, direction)
    locate blah-de-blah (landmark)
    move ...
    locate ...

Which it seems to me you are claiming can only be done in proofs.

Raul Rockwell