Benjamin Franksen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here are two surveys (somewhat outdated) on the use of formal methods in
industry:
http://citeseer.ifi.unizh.ch/39426.html
http://citeseer.ifi.unizh.ch/craigen93international.html
Both of these links are dead. Could you post author
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here are two surveys (somewhat outdated) on the use of formal methods in
industry:
http://citeseer.ifi.unizh.ch/39426.html
http://citeseer.ifi.unizh.ch/craigen93international.html
Both of these links are dead. Could you post author and title?
Thanks
Ben
Hello Al,
Tuesday, January 30, 2007, 6:01:16 PM, you wrote:
Design of functional programs is very bottom-up. The general plan is to
identify the primitives for your domain and embed them in the language,
oh, really? may be i'm using Haskell in OOP way? :)
i strongly prefer to use top-down
Hello Benjamin,
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 1:28:09 AM, you wrote:
course people /like/ to think of 'objects' and their 'behavior' etc.,
it /is/ a very intuituive approach, because it is the way we are used to
think. Unfortunately that doesn't necessarily make it effective for precise
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Al,
Tuesday, January 30, 2007, 6:01:16 PM, you wrote:
Design of functional programs is very bottom-up. The general plan is to
identify the primitives for your domain and embed them in the language,
oh, really? may be i'm using Haskell in OOP way? :)
i strongly
Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
Well, I'm thinking in terms of OOD/OOA/OOP -- Design, Architecture,
Programming. That's about the only way to model a bog system. Say I
have a stock market model -- I'll have a database of tickers, a
simulator to backtest things, a trading strategy, etc.
Do Haskell
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Steve Downey wrote:
OO, at least when done well, maps well to how people think.
Um, better duck. I am afraid you are about to draw
some flames on that one. I hope people will try
to be gentle.
No problem ;-)
I'll never get tired quoting Dijkstra; one of the things
