Rigour is good for you and feasible: reflections on formal treatments of C and UDP sockets

Not really about PLT, but this paper was mentioned on LtU before, and I believe it is a good reminder to people thinking that "research" means "useless".

Rigour is good for you and feasible: reflections on formal treatments of C and UDP sockets

Language designers give rigorous specifications of language syntax as a matter of course. [...] Rigorous definitions of type systems is less common [...] The situation for behavioural specification is even worse. [...] In the long term, we believe greater rigour is essential in the development of more robust software at all levels; there are many behaviourally subtle aspects of operating systems which could benefit from it, and for which the tools are now available.
Testimonials :-) :
"It would be difficult indeed to get more hard-nosedly pragmatic than C and sockets."
-- Paul Snively

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Oh Man...

...you know you've gotten yourself into trouble when you start getting quoted. :-)

I can't resist, though, pointing out that while Peter Sewell's NETSEM project might not involve PLT, the Acute project most certainly does. I strongly urge those interested in language design issues around distributed programming, software versioning, module systems, dynamic linking, etc. to give it a look.