## 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".
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

### 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.