Re: Status of UML 2.0



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Heinrich Hussmann (Heinrich.Hussmann@inf.tu-dresden.de)
Date: Mon 28 Oct 2002 - 09:35:08 GMT


Niall@feabhas.com wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hubert Baumeister [mailto:baumeist@informatik.uni-muenchen.de]
> > >
> > > For example, given some program P, I wish to determine it's
> > meaning.
> > > To
> > > do so requires that I have
> > > a formal semantics, one that is unambiguous and complete in
> > the sense
> > > that every sentence constructed
> > > in the implementation language has only one interpretation in the
> > > specification language - but that requires
> > > me to show that the specification language itself is
> > unambiguous - which
> > > in general can't be done.
> >
> > So what your are saying is, that it is impossible to give a
> > precise mathematical semantics to
> > programming language constructs?
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Modula-2 was specified using VDM.
There were many such projects, successful ones. However, do not expect
such a semantics to be simple to understand...
The first programming language which was formally defined was PL/1, as
far as I know.
For instance, a completely formal semantics for Ada (the old version of
it) exists.
In general, mathematical semantics for programming language constructs
is a compulsory examination topic for the first-year students at our
department. It is very well udnerstood, this means.

Heinrich

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view