Report on the larch shared language

Guttag, John V.; Horning, James J.

doi:10.1016/0167-6423(86)90021-3

Cited by 65 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The formalism of ADTs was still presented as closely related to Simula; the main difference was claimed to be that Simula allowed full inspection of object representations. The publication of this paper initiated a decade of intense research on ADTs, which soon branched into work on languages [30,34], algebraic specification [20,23,24,18,19], and existential types [33].…”

Section: Historical Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object-oriented programming versus abstract data types

Cook

1991

Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This tutorial collects and elaborates arguments for distinguishing between object-oriented programming and abstract data types. The basic distinction is that object-oriented programming achieves data abstraction by the use of procedural abstraction, while abstract data types depend upon type abstraction. Object-oriented programming and abstract data types can also be viewed as complementary implementation techniques: objects are centered around the constructors of a data abstraction, while abstract data types are organized around the operations. These differences have consequences relating to extensibility, efficiency, typing, and verification; in many cases the strengths of one paradigm are the weaknesses of the other. Most object-oriented programming languages support aspects of both techniques, not a unification of them, so an understanding of their relative merits is useful in designing programs.

show abstract

Section: Historical Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object-oriented programming versus abstract data types

Cook

1991

Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Larch, a mathematical theory is written in the Larch Shared Language (Guttag et al, 1985;Guttag and Horning, 1986a) and a program interface specification is written in an implementationlanguage-specific Larch Interface Language (Wing, 1987). Larch can be used to write specifications in either the algebraic or the model-based style, but the main catalog of published examples (Guttag and Horning, 1986b) clearly favors the algebraic style.…”

Section: 4language Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reusable software components

2009

Ada Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Section 2.2 we do the same for CLU. 2 We refer the interested reader to [24] for further details of the Larch Shared Language; to [40] for details about CLU. In Section 2.3 we give an example of a Larch/CLU procedure specification, and in Section 2.4 we give an example of a Larch/CLU cluster specification.…”

Section: An Informal Look At the Larch/clu Interface Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The set of tools includes language-sensitive editors and semantic checkers based on a powerful theorem prover [13,361. The Larch family of specification languages [22] includes the design and formal definitions of the Larch Shared Language [24] and Larch interface languages [51]. These languages were designed to support the specification technique called "the two-tiered approach," which was first introduced in [19] and elaborated upon in the author's Ph.D. thesis [51].…”

Section: Context: Larch's Two-tiered Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing Larch interface language specifications

Wing

1987

ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current research in specifications is emphasizing the practical use of formal specifications in program design. One way to encourage their use in practice is to provide specification languages that are accessible to both designers and programmers. With this goal in mind, the Larch family of formal specification languages has evolved to support a two-tiered approach to writing specifications. This approach separates the specification of state transformations and programming language dependencies from the specification of underlying abstractions. Thus, each member of the Larch family has a subset derived from a programming language and another subset independent of any programming languages. We call the former interface languages, and the latter the Larch Shared Language. This paper focuses on Larch interface language specifications. Through examples, we illustrate some salient features of Larch/CLU, a Larch interface language for the programming language CLU. We give an example of writing an interface specification following the two-tiered approach and discuss in detail issues involved in writing interface specifications and their interaction with their Shared Language components.

show abstract

Report on the larch shared language

Cited by 65 publications

References 3 publications

Object-oriented programming versus abstract data types

Object-oriented programming versus abstract data types

Reusable software components

Writing Larch interface language specifications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About