Greg Young [MVP]

Sponsors

The Lounge

Wicked Cool Jobs

Syndication

Recent Posts

Tags

View more

News

Archives

Advertisement

Greg Young [MVP] » I Want Spec#
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
I Want Spec#

                                               spec#

Scott Hanselman has recently put up a new hanselminutes of an interview with the spec# team. This interview was done at altdotnet; one of the key points of discussion both in general and in the interview was "how can we get spec#?". The simple answer is we have to want spec# and Microsoft needs to know that we want it. The more people who want it the more likely we are to get it or to get it in pieces. The best way for them to know is for us to tell them!

 

Let's give Mike and the whole spec# team the best compliment possible on their research; asking for it to become integrated in products and/or to be available with a commercial license!

I want verifiable software...

I WANT SPEC#!

 

 

 

Here is a reusable bumper sticker for your blog to make it easier to express how you feel.

 

spec 

 

Drop a note here so I can try to keep track of people!

 

If you don't know about spec# now may be a great time to watch the recent presentation from altdotnet

Posted Mon, Apr 28 2008 6:23 PM by Greg
Filed under: , ,

[Advertisement]

Comments

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

Mike Strobel wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:20 PM
A past informal conversation with a member of the C# team has left me with the impression that we're unlikely to see Spec#-style language support for DbC constructs in a future version of C#. It seems we're more likely to see DbC support in the form of a framework that works across .NET languages, coupled with some sort of static analysis support. While I would naturally love to see C# include native DbC support (or Spec# to include the C# 3.0 language features), I'd be pretty reasonably content with solid DbC support in the form of assertion methods and attributes. On a side note, I've created a feature request on the ReSharper issue tracker to add realtime/compile-time static analysis of DbC constructs in a future release of ReSharper. I posted a link in the R# community forums, so anyone who's interested is encouraged to vote for the feature.
Greg wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Mon, Apr 28 2008 11:24 PM

Mike, I have had those same conversations ...

Actually I think some of them are in that video ... if not they are in the interview I did with Mike and Rustan for infoq.

Cheers,

Greg

back round check wrote back round check
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 12:13 AM

Pingback from  back round check

deerchao wrote I want Spec#!
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 12:27 AM
Iwantverifiablesoftware...IWANTSPEC#!Andofcourse,Iwantbeauty(ah,yeah,singulare,oneise...
deerchao wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 12:41 AM
I love Spec# and want it too.
Fredrik Normén wrote I also want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 12:45 AM
I will copy Greg Young ! I also want Spec#. If you also wants it, please let Microsoft know about it
Cornerstones utvecklarblogg wrote I also want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 12:48 AM
I will copy Greg Young ! I also want Spec#. If you also wants it, please let Microsoft know about it.
Eyad Salamin wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 4:21 AM
I love it and want it.
Steven wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 7:02 AM
Love it, need it, want it!
RhysC wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 7:19 AM
I want it now!
Peter Ritchie wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 9:06 AM
Yes, DbC in C# as soon as possible!
Todd D wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 9:34 AM

want it, want it, want it! it'd be so much better not to have DbC stuff infiltrating my code at runtime

Mike Strobel wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 10:20 AM

Greg,

That's reassuring to hear.  At least it sounds like we'll end up with some form of DbC support.  I actually did some experimenting a couple weeks back using the Spec#-generated attributes in C# code and running Boogie against it as a post-build process.  It actually worked pretty well, but the expression syntax for those attributes is pretty cumbersome and not very practical to use outside of Spec#.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike Strobel wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 10:23 AM
I forgot to mention that the Nemerle language now has partial support for Spec#-style contracts, but it does not yet have static analysis support. There's also no support for expression trees or LINQ as far as I know. Maybe some kind soul with a nice chunk of spare time would be interested in bringing the language up to speed?
Thomas Danecker wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 12:10 PM
Also want to have spec#!!!
Charlie Calvert wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 1:26 PM
I thought someone from the C# team should chime in here and let you know we are following this thread and that we are aware of the interest in Spec#. There is nothing to announce at this time, but I wanted to let you know that you are being heard. I've seen a few emails going back and forth about this, and of course their are Spec# fans on our team who share your passion for this subject. - Charlie
Kim Hamilton wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 2:58 PM
It's well known that BCL wants Spec# so we can get some DBC goodness in the framework libraries! (I wouldn't mind having that t-shirt too...)
Greg wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 3:02 PM

Kim: BCL + DbC + compile time proving = me very very happy :)

btw: its good to see that you have been moving that direction with new development using Microsoft.Contracts.

Jeff Tucker wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Tue, Apr 29 2008 3:20 PM
I want spec# and the chick wearing the T-shirt blogged: http://agilology.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-can-haz-spec-kthx.html
DotNetKicks.com wrote spec#
on Wed, Apr 30 2008 3:47 AM

You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from DotNetKicks.com

Matthew Podwysocki wrote Side Effecting Functions are Code Smells
on Wed, Apr 30 2008 11:58 PM

I know the title might catch a few people off guard, but let me explain. Side effecting functions, for

Matthew Podwysocki's Blog wrote Side Effecting Functions are Code Smells
on Thu, May 1 2008 12:00 AM

I know the title might catch a few people off guard, but let me explain. Side effecting functions, for

Jan Van Ryswyck wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Thu, May 1 2008 2:40 PM
+1
Kyle Lanser wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Thu, May 1 2008 4:57 PM
Just read a couple of the PDF's on http://research.microsoft.com/specsharp/ and DbC looks awesome! Need to get more people talking about this!
Jason Stangroome wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Mon, May 5 2008 8:21 AM

I want Spec#!

Hendry Luk wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Wed, May 7 2008 2:02 AM
I am wondering if there has been any work done on compile-time DBC based on C# attribute? How possible (or impossible) is it?
Hendry Luk wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Wed, May 7 2008 2:56 AM
The way i see it, spec# is the exact opposite of ruby. It's quite fenomenal the recent hype about Ruby, enthusiasm to get similar duck-typing-ness on CLR, while at the same time we're also fancying spec#. Im not a fans of Ruby to begin with. So, go spec#!!
Greg wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Wed, May 7 2008 1:19 PM

Henry you are correct dynamic languages and compile time proving are pretty much mutually exclusive.

I had a great chat with the Mike and Rustan from the spec# team and John Lam from the IronRuby team on how the two can play nicely together since each has its own strengths and weaknesses. I recorded this chat and should be putting it out sometime soon.

Scott Hanselman's Computer Zen wrote Hanselminutes Podcast 110 - Microsoft Research: Spec#
on Thu, May 8 2008 3:24 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

TrackBack wrote http://kozmic.pl/archive/2008/04/29/i-want-that-in-c-4.0-or-showing-spec-love.aspx
on Fri, May 9 2008 1:15 PM
.Net Unplugged wrote SPEC# - Um C# mais interessante
on Sun, May 11 2008 8:27 PM

SPEC# - Um C# mais interessante

Spec#: should we really wait for it? | The .Net frog wrote Spec#: should we really wait for it? | The .Net frog
on Tue, May 13 2008 2:11 PM

Pingback from  Spec#: should we really wait for it? | The .Net frog

Simon Segal wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Wed, May 21 2008 4:39 AM
I must have spec# (sooner the better).
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

Sadek Drobi wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Wed, May 28 2008 4:37 PM
+1 for DbC +1 for spec#
Kevin McFarlane wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Thu, May 29 2008 5:02 PM
I want Spec#!
Colin Jack wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Sat, May 31 2008 6:41 AM

Great idea

Stewart Rogers wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Mon, Jun 2 2008 11:50 AM
I love Spec# and I must have it.
Jimit Ndiaye wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Wed, Jun 18 2008 4:10 AM
Need! Want it! Gotta have it! A.S.A.P.!!! And not just in C# either... i need it baked into the BCL and CLR so it's usable in .NET languages other than C#
Robin wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Wed, Jul 2 2008 10:01 AM
I want Spec#!
office space sound bytes wrote office space sound bytes
on Wed, Jul 2 2008 6:42 PM

Pingback from  office space sound bytes

David Kreth Allen wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Sun, Jul 6 2008 11:51 PM
I want DbC. And if it is not ready yet for prime-time as a first-class language feature, you could add Spec#-like features to Code Analysis warnings. Who cares if it misses a few edge cases? I'd be delighted to detect null dereference possibilities in 95% of the cases. Finding and fixing those translates to real observable product quality improvements. With software as complex and large as it is today, we MUST get more automated help to detect defects early in the lifecycle. At least make namespace Microsoft.Contract public so I can borrow your PreconditionExceptions and so we can start to manually code some DbC using some pseudo-standard language.
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 9:42 PM

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

Cialis best price buy online. wrote Cialis best price buy online.
on Tue, Jul 22 2008 10:01 AM

Cheap cialis online cialis buy cialis online. Cialis online pharmacy in usa. Cialis best price buy online.

Dean Grossmith wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Wed, Jul 30 2008 4:09 AM
Yes to DbC - there is so much anecdotal evidence out there that says it leads to better quality sofrware.
trick r treat 2008 wikipedia wrote trick r treat 2008 wikipedia
on Fri, Aug 1 2008 10:50 AM

Pingback from  trick r treat 2008 wikipedia

xp stack based buffer variable wrote xp stack based buffer variable
on Fri, Aug 1 2008 5:51 PM

Pingback from  xp stack based buffer variable

Propecia. wrote Cheap propecia buy propecia online.
on Fri, Aug 8 2008 12:59 AM

Hair loss propecia drug dht. Propecia. Propecia generic. Initial effects of propecia on hair. Propecia cheap deals. Propecia information from drugs com.

Living in the Tech Avalanche Generation » If I could have just one thing! wrote Living in the Tech Avalanche Generation » If I could have just one thing!
on Sat, Aug 9 2008 8:55 PM

Pingback from  Living in the Tech Avalanche Generation » If I could have just one thing!

Kevin from Affiliate Marketing Help & Tips wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Wed, Aug 13 2008 12:44 PM
Specsharp discriminates between expressions that may evaluate to null and those that are sure not to. It will greatly reduce errors inherent in modern programming languages.
A Dropper wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Fri, Aug 22 2008 2:52 PM
*drop*
ASP Net Web Development wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Mon, Sep 1 2008 8:00 AM

well done!!!!!!

LA.NET [EN] wrote C# 4.0 request: I would like to have design by contract…please?
on Mon, Oct 20 2008 5:08 PM

I think that adding verifiability to the language would be great. MS Research has been working on Spec#

ASPInsiders wrote C# 4.0 request: I would like to have design by contract…please?
on Mon, Oct 20 2008 6:04 PM

I think that adding verifiability to the language would be great. MS Research has been working on Spec#

Design by Contract meets .NET « Pedro F??lix’s shared memory wrote Design by Contract meets .NET « Pedro F??lix’s shared memory
on Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:40 PM

Pingback from  Design by Contract meets .NET « Pedro F??lix’s shared memory

Raoul Duke wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Fri, Feb 6 2009 5:47 PM
I'd rather have a good form of dependent typing, that can subsume DbC. Heck, there are even people at MSR who are working on Ynot/Coq.
SealedSun wrote re: I Want Spec#
on Thu, Mar 5 2009 11:28 AM

I'm a bit late but I want Spec# too!

Add a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Remember Me?
Devlicio.us