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

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:34:56 +0100, (see below) wrote:

> On 20/08/2010 09:40, in article
> 3ed38f7f-372d-422e-9bda-eca8a73d3f0d@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, "Phil
> Thornley" <phil.jpthornley@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Proof-oriented?

I like it!

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de