I see where you're going here. It might help if we construct a specific syntax and grammar for writing specifications for software. It'll be helpful for all of us if we can make our specifications as clear and efficient as possible. We could even call this combination of a syntax and grammar a programming language.
Just imagine a world when we have these programming languages to help us encode the specifications for our software. Wild! :)
User stories
Re:The No-Code Generation is arriving
by RobertKerans on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @06:05PM
(#24912523)
...and so, we reach Cucumber, the apex of programming
I like to think of the square root of x function:
r such that r * r = x
Re:The No-Code Generation is arriving
by a1369209993 on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @03:42PM
(#24910992)
And:
print "Hello, World!"
fn (*) :: Num -> Num -> Num
fn (a * b) = [machine code goes here]
un (_ * d) n = n/d
un (d * _) n = n/d
un (_ * _) n = sqrt(n)
Re:The No-Code Generation is arriving
by earleybird on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @03:50PM
(#24911067)
Well then, "all you need to do" is convert your non constructive proof into a constructive one - et, voila :-)
I like this answer because it says it will require someone with specific knowledge and specific training doing a specific job anyway...
Also "anyway" a specification is always incomplete. It's part of the programmers' job to fill the gaps with something sensible, and when they have no idea what to do, to point out that some corner case was overlooked.
This is where programmers sometimes start to feel like Lieutenant Columbo: at first everyone is nice, but people become more and more irritated as the pesky cop asks more and more embarrassing questions.
Re:The No-Code Generation is arriving
by ineedasername on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @08:59PM
(#24913824)
at first everyone is nice, but people become more and more irritated as the pesky cop asks more and more embarrassing questions.
You just summed up about 20% of my job
...and we call that specification a computer program.