Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Program Specification Languages
Message-ID: <629@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 23:03:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.629
Posted: Fri Aug 30 23:03:39 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 05:24:03 EDT
References: <638@wdl1.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 6
Summary: Specifications are programs



The whole idea of a specification language for a computer program is flawed.
If the specification is good enough to really determine what the program
does, it IS a program; only the compiler is missing.  If it isn't that good,
why bother with a formal specification language?  (Do write a specification,
of course; just don't expect it to be good enough for a verification.)