Re: Categories for SPARK on Rosetta Code (Was: SPARK : third example for Roesetta - reviewers welcome)

[Phil Thornley <phil.jpthornley@gmail.com>]

On 19 Aug, 07:19, Jacob Sparre Andersen <spa...@nbi.dk> wrote:
> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> > Phil Thornley wrote:
> >> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >>> I would also suggest Rosetta Maintainers a new category (we should
> >>> invent a good clear name for it, e.g. "static analysis", "DbC",
> >>> "provability") to add it to this:
>
> >>>http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Language_Comparison_Table
>
> >> Seem's a good idea - how about "statically analysable".
>
> > It is too vague. In some sense any language is, after all there exist
> > static analysis tool for C. SPARK is obviously more than that, but it
> > is tricky to formulate the difference.
>
> Maybe we should simply introduce several categories.
>
>  + Provable free of exceptions (run-time errors?)
>  + Finite memory use.
>  + Free of unreachable code.
>  + ...?
>
> I'm not quite sure exactly which categories I would formulate.  Maybe
> somebody from Spark-Team at Praxis can help us with some good
> suggestions.
I suspect that if we can't come up with an obvious phrase for what we
mean then there's no chance of other language users understanding what
we mean by it and using it correctly.

Phil