4 ms·
Thank you for that definition. So an implementation could also be defined as a complete, machine-readable, executable specification. Edit: Follow-up, this also
by cloogshicer 4y ago
Thank you for that definition. So an implementation could also be defined as a complete, machine-readable, executable specification.
Edit: Follow-up, this also means that every implementation is also a specification, right? Are there implementations that are not also specifications?
- Someone 4y agoNothing is a specification until you label it “SPECIFICATION”, thus indicating “This is how this kind of thing is supposed to operate”. If you do that with an implementation, you’re saying “this code has no bugs”. It may behave unexpectedly or crash, but that would all be exactly what the specification says.
- cloogshicer 4y agoRight, that makes sense, if we talk about specifications in an informal way. Basically, any implementation I declare as specification is now a specification (Michael Scott style, heh). But not all specifications are also implementations (at least according to this video [1]). I don't fully understand yet what makes those specifications not implementations. Maybe I need to see more examples for formal specifications that are not implementations. [1] https://youtu.be/YoubQxqdICc?list=PLfsVAYSMwskseQbJ242TApAzA7fW83KyH&t=84 https://youtu.be/YoubQxqdICc?list=PLfsVAYSMwskseQbJ242TApAzA...