|Formatting of Language LRMs firstname.lastname@example.org (Seima Rao) (2014-06-17)|
|Re: Formatting of Language LRMs email@example.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-06-20)|
|Re: Formatting of Language LRMs Pidgeot18@verizon.net.invalid (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIENyYW5tZXIg8J+Qpw==?=) (2014-06-22)|
|Re: VWG and K, was Formatting of Language LRMs firstname.lastname@example.org (Ivan Godard) (2014-06-22)|
|From:||Ivan Godard <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:47:28 -0700|
|Organization:||A noiseless patient Spider|
|References:||14-06-010 14-06-016 14-06-021|
|Posted-Date:||24 Jun 2014 11:46:19 EDT|
> I did a bit of playing with K during a course a few years ago, and I
> ended up getting the feeling that the start of the art in executable
> semantics is such that we could start seeing languages written as
> executable semantics in maybe 10-20 years or so. While I did have a
> very large share of swearing and screaming at the tool for its
> deficiencies, I did leave the course actually feeling like I would
> want to use K if I had the chance, which is more than I can say for
> the few other attempts I've had at using formal methods tooling
> (disclaimer: the professor of said course led the development of K).
> Link: <http://www.kframework.org/index.php/Main_Page>.
I have never played with K, but after a run through the doc it appears
to have much the same goal as VWG, but to be more imperative/pattern
oriented and less applicative than VWG. Either will be a steep ramp.
Anyone can do syntax; sugar is easy, but also immoral and fattening.
Semantics is much harder, but worthwhile. Stretch those synapses!
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.