From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,2243248c6a74be5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal? Date: 1996/07/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 169481389 references: <4sord0$l0k@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> <4su04n$fa6@hermes.acs.unt.edu> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.edu Date: 1996-07-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Steve Tate said "I believe that pseudo-code is better for getting across general principles without getting bogged down in implementation details. As another reason to promote pseudocode, I suggest in a half-serious way that it is less likely to have people say things like this last poster. To explain that a little better: you can never, EVER "test the correctness" of an *algorithm* by executing it. I don't care how you design your test cases, the ONLY way to show the correctness of an algorithm is with a formal mathematical proof. Of course, implementations are good for demonstrating the INcorrectness of some algorithms! :-)" But you certainly cannot prove the correctness of an algorithm written in pseudo-code, at best you could produce an informal proof. If you really want to write proofs of correctness, then you need to write not just in a programming language, but in one whose semantics are rigorously understood and formally defined.