Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!rutgers!cbmvax!vu-vlsi!ge-mc3i!sterritt
From: sterritt@ge-mc3i.UUCP (Chris Sterritt)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Software Reuse (short title)
Message-ID: <329@ge-mc3i.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Jul-87 11:17:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: ge-mc3i.329
Posted: Sat Jul 18 11:17:05 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jul-87 03:12:50 EDT
References: <1339@ogcvax.UUCP> <76600012@uiucdcsp>
Reply-To: sterritt@ge-mc3i.UUCP (Chris Sterritt)
Distribution: world
Organization: General Electric Astro Space Div.
Lines: 17
Summary: Info on ML, SML, LML

Hello,
	I've been following the discussion of this avidly, but am new to the
programming languages (?) ML, SML, and LML.  Could someone (ideally mail
me directly so as not to clog the net!) send me information on these langauges,
so that I might find out more?
	Along the ideas of the discussion, if I remember my Computability 
theory correctly -- doesn't it make some sense that to show an algorithm
(either computable or to prove it) you need to give an almost algorithmic
description, as in an inductive proof?  So isn't this what Lisp is (I'm a lisp
hacker at work).  I'd think that Church's Lambda Calculus would shed some light
on this discussion, as I believe that that was what he was trying to do with
the calculus.  Generally, I agree that to specify an algorithm IN ENOUGH DETAIL,
you will probably wind up writing at least as much information down as the code
itself.  I think that 'Requirements' as we define them in 'Software Engineering'
presume a *lot* of human intelligence.
	Any comments?
	Chris Sterritt