Don't verify, abstract!

C. O'Halloran, Alf Smith
{"title":"Don't verify, abstract!","authors":"C. O'Halloran, Alf Smith","doi":"10.1109/ASE.1998.732573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Describes a notation and tool for demonstrating to a third-party certifier that software written in a subset of Ada is safe, and gives some experience of using them on real projects. The thesis underlying the design is that people write adequate code, but that they make design and implementation decisions which can conflict with each other to introduce safety problems. The usual paradigm of formally specifying and then developing and verifying the code is less cost-effective than writing the code and then abstracting it to a level that is suitable for human judgements to be made. This is because there are more people who know how to write good code than those who can write effective formal specifications. The tool processes a formal, or informal, argument that code meets its safety requirements using literate programming and concepts from the refinement calculus developed at Oxford University.","PeriodicalId":306519,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings 13th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (Cat. No.98EX239)","volume":"281 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings 13th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (Cat. No.98EX239)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE.1998.732573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Describes a notation and tool for demonstrating to a third-party certifier that software written in a subset of Ada is safe, and gives some experience of using them on real projects. The thesis underlying the design is that people write adequate code, but that they make design and implementation decisions which can conflict with each other to introduce safety problems. The usual paradigm of formally specifying and then developing and verifying the code is less cost-effective than writing the code and then abstracting it to a level that is suitable for human judgements to be made. This is because there are more people who know how to write good code than those who can write effective formal specifications. The tool processes a formal, or informal, argument that code meets its safety requirements using literate programming and concepts from the refinement calculus developed at Oxford University.
不要验证,抽象!
描述了一个符号和工具,用于向第三方证明用Ada子集编写的软件是安全的,并给出了在实际项目中使用它们的一些经验。这种设计背后的论点是,人们编写了足够的代码,但他们做出的设计和实现决策可能会相互冲突,从而引入安全问题。正式指定然后开发和验证代码的通常范例比编写代码然后将其抽象到适合人类判断的级别的成本效益更低。这是因为知道如何编写好的代码的人比能够编写有效的正式规范的人要多。该工具使用来自牛津大学开发的精化演算的识字编程和概念来处理代码满足其安全需求的正式或非正式的论证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信