The Science of Programming

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

…almost always makes for an interesting read, cf. Niklaus Wirth: "Good ideas through the looking glass".) [ 1 ]: Interested readers might want to check out the excellent "The Science of Programming" by David Gries.

… properties. and last but not least, while i think that axiomatic semantics are important, i think it is almost always too time consuming to write hoare triples. i have "the science of programming" by david gries, which should help my incompetent brain to speed up here, but the truth is: it's non-trivial for many programs. this is why i feel that many things are going the "interactive theorem proving"-way. this sums it up pretty much for me. please note that i am not an expert on these issues--though very interested. axiomatic semantics and interactive theorem proving as mentioned above are not mutually exclusive, i.e., i think that one should very well be able to ensure correctness via hoare triples proven in interactive theorem provers.