Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!news.dfci.harvard.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!chaos.dac.neu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!gw2.att.com!gw1.att.com!nntpa!not-for-mail
From: arw@mtatm.mt.att.com (Aaron Waters)
Subject: Re: Why is one OO language more productive than another?
Message-ID: <DEy4Hv.8yr@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Sender: news@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mtatm.mt.att.com
Organization: AT&T
References: <808962188.12601@rugrat.demon.co.uk> <4341rt$1bv@snlsu1> <DEuJFu.M6w@nntpa.cb.att.com> <437goo$3vfe@tigger.cc.uic.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 12:10:41 GMT
Lines: 18
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:38361 comp.lang.eiffel:10887 comp.lang.c++:149123 comp.lang.smalltalk:28400

dhanley@matisse.eecs.uic.edu wrote
>Aaron Watters (arw@mtatm.mt.att.com) wrote:
>
>: And for the record, proving that i will always be prime is a fantasy.
>
>	I don't suppose you'd care to elucidate us on why this is so?

I misspoke.  You can prove things about programs in the normal
mathematical sense (like in ACM Journal of Algorithms, etc.).
I was refering to automated formal proofs.

See DeMillo, Lipton, & Perlis, CACM Nov '79 (I think?).  It's an old
critique, but everything they said then remains equally valid today,
which tells you something...  Also see Lakatos, _Proofs and Refutations_
for a great discussion of the development of mathematical thought and
how formalism has very little to do with it...

sorry for the error.		-a.
