Re: A good book
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:10:17 GMT
Message-ID: <Zzwrg.7518$pu3.167703_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> I'm aware of Dijkstra's use of predicate calculus for proofs of program
> correctness in imperative languages. I don't fully understand it at
> this point, but I'm aware of it. Is there somewhere that he used
> predicate calculus in a way that addresses relational databases?
>
> Of course, there's quite a large difference between Dijkstra writing
> about elegance and explaining how relational databases are necessary or
> helpful in producing elegant software. I'm afraid that, in my case, you
> can't take that connection as given. I'm trying to see that viewpoint;
> really, I am. But I've read quite a bit of Dijkstra's work, and
> ESPECIALLY a good bit from the period in which he adopted his quest for
> improved heuristics and research methods; and I fail to see the
> relationship at all. He simply was not talking about why everyone
> should use some different tool.
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:10:17 GMT
Message-ID: <Zzwrg.7518$pu3.167703_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Chris Smith wrote:
> Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Dijkstra wrote a lot about the predicate calculus, about elegance etc.
>
> I'm aware of Dijkstra's use of predicate calculus for proofs of program
> correctness in imperative languages. I don't fully understand it at
> this point, but I'm aware of it. Is there somewhere that he used
> predicate calculus in a way that addresses relational databases?
>
> Of course, there's quite a large difference between Dijkstra writing
> about elegance and explaining how relational databases are necessary or
> helpful in producing elegant software. I'm afraid that, in my case, you
> can't take that connection as given. I'm trying to see that viewpoint;
> really, I am. But I've read quite a bit of Dijkstra's work, and
> ESPECIALLY a good bit from the period in which he adopted his quest for
> improved heuristics and research methods; and I fail to see the
> relationship at all. He simply was not talking about why everyone
> should use some different tool.