Though this be madness, yet there is method in it? (Keynote)

Alan Wassyng
{"title":"Though this be madness, yet there is method in it? (Keynote)","authors":"Alan Wassyng","doi":"10.1109/FormaliSE.2013.6612270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After decades of research, and despite significant advancement, formal methods are still not widely used in industrial software development. Industry practitioners believe that the methods and tools coming out of academia are, to a large extent, irrelevant and ineffective in tackling real-life projects. They are difficult to use, esoteric, and do not scale (at all). This paper reflects more than twenty years spent in first experiencing the problems in industry, and then struggling to do something about it in academia. We present some examples of formal method madness/blindness, as well as a few successes. We believe the problem is deep. To start to address it and make progress in producing methods that are truly usable in industry, and rigorous enough to make them effective engineering methods, we need to reconsider the role of computer scientists, software engineers, software developers, as well as the hurdles to promotion for academics. Along the way, the paper will present a few fundamental principles that we think spell the difference between success and failure in producing usable formal methods, and convincing software professionals in industry to adopt them.","PeriodicalId":269932,"journal":{"name":"2013 1st FME Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Engineering (FormaliSE)","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2013 1st FME Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Engineering (FormaliSE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FormaliSE.2013.6612270","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

After decades of research, and despite significant advancement, formal methods are still not widely used in industrial software development. Industry practitioners believe that the methods and tools coming out of academia are, to a large extent, irrelevant and ineffective in tackling real-life projects. They are difficult to use, esoteric, and do not scale (at all). This paper reflects more than twenty years spent in first experiencing the problems in industry, and then struggling to do something about it in academia. We present some examples of formal method madness/blindness, as well as a few successes. We believe the problem is deep. To start to address it and make progress in producing methods that are truly usable in industry, and rigorous enough to make them effective engineering methods, we need to reconsider the role of computer scientists, software engineers, software developers, as well as the hurdles to promotion for academics. Along the way, the paper will present a few fundamental principles that we think spell the difference between success and failure in producing usable formal methods, and convincing software professionals in industry to adopt them.
虽然这是疯狂,但其中有方法吗?(主题)
经过几十年的研究,尽管取得了显著的进步,形式化方法仍然没有在工业软件开发中广泛使用。行业从业者认为,在很大程度上,来自学术界的方法和工具在处理现实生活中的项目时是不相关和无效的。它们难以使用、深奥难懂,而且(根本)无法扩展。这篇论文反映了二十多年来,我首先经历了工业界的问题,然后在学术界努力做一些事情。我们提出了一些形式方法疯狂/盲目的例子,以及一些成功的例子。我们认为问题很严重。为了开始解决这个问题,并在产生真正可用于工业的方法方面取得进展,并且足够严格,使其成为有效的工程方法,我们需要重新考虑计算机科学家,软件工程师,软件开发人员的角色,以及学术界晋升的障碍。在此过程中,本文将提出一些基本原则,我们认为这些原则在产生可用的形式化方法和说服行业中的软件专业人员采用它们方面拼出了成功与失败之间的区别。
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