🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Oct31.102351.21789@newcastle.ac.uk> des0mpw@colman.newcastle.ac.uk (M.P. Ward) writes:
>I always used to say "a specification is more abstract than a program"
>(there is a continuum here ranging from "low-level" programs to "highly
>abstract" specifications - its not an either-or relation). Then I was
>challenged to define what I meant by "more abstract". The best definition
>I could come up with was SMALLER (and more readable - but the metric
>which coresponds most closely to intuitive notions of readablility is size!).

I have used the argument of size myself but I think it is less
important than the tractability of the specification languages we
should like to see used. It is - for example - true that a
specification in terms of objects like sets and maps is shorter than
one in terms of bytes/pointers but the key issue is that one can reason
about the mathematical objects precisely because they have evolved to
systems with sets of operators with nice algebraic properties.


BTW I still stand by the *technical* arguments given in the paper by
Hayes/Jones referred to earlier in this news group.

cliff jones