Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!brolga!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au!anthony
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.specification
Subject: Structuring large spec VDM vs Z ? (was Re: VDM vs Z notation?)
Keywords: LOTOS, Z
Message-ID: <2017@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Date: 19 Jun 91 03:36:42 GMT
References: <1991Jun18.152454.27474@fmg.bt.co.uk>
Sender: news@cs.uq.oz.au
Reply-To: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au
Lines: 18

A lot people responded to the original question about VDM vs Z
stated that one of their reasons for choosing either VDM or Z was
because of the language's ability to structure large specifications.
However nobody bother backing up their statements, i.e. nobody
said why say VDM was better for structuring.

I would really like to hear more arguments about why one is better
than the other in terms of structuring.  In particular I want to
know what mechanisms are available for building specifications 
incrmentally, (e.g. schema calculus). 

The next question is do you think object-orientation could 
assist the building of incremental specifications ?

--
Anthony Lee (Michaelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor) 
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au			    TEL:+(61)-7-365-2697 (w)
SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia