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