Greg Young [MVP]

Sponsors

The Lounge

Syndication

Recent Posts

Tags

View more

News

Archives

Advertisement

Greg Young [MVP] » Altdotnet Spec# Session
Images in this post missing? We recently lost them in a site migration. We're working to restore these as you read this. Should you need an image in an emergency, please contact us at imagehelp@codebetter.com
Altdotnet Spec# Session

Here is another video in the videos from altdotnet. We had Rustan and Mike of the spec# come out from their cave (j/k) at MSR to talk about spec#, boogie, and the future of compile time proving!

 

 

Enjoy it and as always feel free to leave feedback! 

 

 the video is not the best quality but hey ... it was taken on a phone!

Posted Sat, Apr 26 2008 4:13 PM by Greg
Filed under: , , ,

[Advertisement]

Comments

Fervent Coder wrote re: Altdotnet Spec# Session
on Sat, Apr 26 2008 5:33 PM
Sorry for my bad holding at times, I was trying to figure out how to zoom... :D
Peter Gummer wrote re: Altdotnet Spec# Session
on Sun, Apr 27 2008 1:03 AM
Everyone should watch this! It's a really good presentation of the value of Design by Contract to the uninitiated. Having recently watched the Bertrand Meyer interview at http://channel9.msdn.com/tags/Eiffel, it's amazing how C# is so far behind Eiffel in this respect. Eiffel has had contracts forever, and is currently in the midst of the move to not-null types. (And Eiffel is a .NET language too, of course.) The static verification in Spec# sounds great though. We've gotta get his stuff into C# now! One surprising thing about the presentation was that there didn't seem to be any nay-sayers among the test-driven developers in the audience. DbC and TDD gurus are often hostile to each other, which has always bewildered me because it just seems obvious that the two approaches are complementary. Maybe the presentation was just too compelling for such doubts. Shame we didn't really get to see the projected code in the video, but nice job with the camera phone all the same, Greg :-)
Greg wrote re: Altdotnet Spec# Session
on Sun, Apr 27 2008 2:02 AM

Yeah this is definitely an awesome intro for the uninitiated on spec# and compile time proving.

I agree that the two work very well together (this was actually my talk at devTeach last year). It does however become interesting in terms of TDD. Red green refactor really has another step if I put prover errors as compile errors ... and it leads to a contract first mentality which I think is more appropriate in both a staticly verified language or even just a staticly typed language.

test first works best in dynamic languages that let me call methods that don't exist yet.

Jason Haley wrote Interesting Finds: April 27, 2008
on Sun, Apr 27 2008 10:49 AM
Matthew Podwysocki wrote Making Spec# a Priority
on Mon, Apr 28 2008 7:21 PM

During ALT.NET Open Spaces, Seattle, I spent a bit of time with Rustan Leino and Mike Barnett from the

Matthew Podwysocki's Blog wrote Making Spec# a Priority
on Mon, Apr 28 2008 7:24 PM

During ALT.NET Open Spaces, Seattle, I spent a bit of time with Rustan Leino and Mike Barnett from the

I Want Spec# - Greg Young [MVP] wrote I Want Spec# - Greg Young [MVP]
on Mon, Apr 28 2008 7:27 PM

Pingback from  I Want Spec# - Greg Young [MVP]

DotNetKicks.com wrote Video: Intro to Spec# - Future of development
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 12:53 AM
You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from DotNetKicks.com
Links Today (2008-04-29) wrote Links Today (2008-04-29)
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 12:42 PM

Pingback from  Links Today (2008-04-29)

Community Blogs wrote Don't miss out on Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 3:18 PM

Hey , you decision makers up there at Microsoft. Maybe you didn't realize this, or maybe you're

Karl wrote re: Altdotnet Spec# Session
on Sun, May 4 2008 5:41 AM
I have been wondering about this fact for a couple of years now. Why doesn't C# support DbC? I think this would be _the_ most powerful feature in C# since the introduction of generics. I can't count the various subtle errors in my programs which could have been avoided by using something like spec#.
Scott Hanselman's Computer Zen wrote Hanselminutes Podcast 110 - Microsoft Research: Spec#
on Thu, May 8 2008 3:23 PM
ASPInsiders wrote Hanselminutes Podcast 110 - Microsoft Research: Spec#
on Thu, May 8 2008 3:27 PM

My one-hundred-and-tenth podcast is up . This episode was recorded at the ALT.NET Open Spaces Conference

Hanselminutes Podcast 110 - Microsoft Research: Spec# | Developer Home wrote Hanselminutes Podcast 110 - Microsoft Research: Spec# | Developer Home
on Thu, May 22 2008 6:19 PM

Pingback from  Hanselminutes Podcast 110 - Microsoft Research: Spec# | Developer Home

Living in the Tech Avalanche Generation » Spec# lets me write more verifiable & predictable software wrote Living in the Tech Avalanche Generation » Spec# lets me write more verifiable & predictable software
on Fri, Jul 11 2008 9:54 PM

Pingback from  Living in the Tech Avalanche Generation » Spec# lets me write more verifiable & predictable software

Gain lexapro medication. wrote Lexapro.
on Mon, Aug 25 2008 1:55 PM

Lexapro side effects. Lexapro. Lexapro and alcohol.

Net Framework Development wrote re: Altdotnet Spec# Session
on Mon, Sep 8 2008 2:24 AM

Nice video ... thanks for sharing...

Vicente wrote re: Altdotnet Spec# Session
on Wed, Sep 17 2008 7:48 PM
I agree with Karl. I am looking foward to seeing this in the IDE.
video conferencing freeware wrote re: Altdotnet Spec# Session
on Fri, Jan 2 2009 2:50 AM

I have read this post. This is very much true. Even I own a blog account on video conferencing. Video conferencing is indeed a great innovation in technology and communications. One day video conferencing will be like an ordinary house-hold item in the next 5-10 years.I will mention your post in my blog.

dfdads wrote re: Altdotnet Spec# Session
on Mon, Feb 2 2009 1:29 AM

Yeah this is definitely an awesome intro for the uninitiated on spec# and compile time proving.

wholesale jewelry wrote re: Altdotnet Spec# Session
on Wed, Feb 25 2009 2:49 AM

you decision makers up

Add a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Remember Me?