Top

Published in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Why Programming Must Be Supported by Modeling and How

Author : Egon Börger

Published in: Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Modeling

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The development of code for software intensive systems involves numerous levels of abstraction, leading from requirements to code. Having abstract modeling concepts available as high-level programming constructs helps to define the code and to make sure that when the system runs with the software executed by machines, the software components behave in the expected way. We explain in this paper that nevertheless, there remains a gap, which cannot be closed by mere programming methods, but which can be closed if programming is supported by an appropriate modeling framework (a design and analysis method and a language).

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Using Umple to Synergistically Process Features, Variants, UML Models and Classic Code

next chapter On Models and Code

To avoid a misunderstanding of the term ‘ground’ in ‘ground model’, we point out already here that during the development process, the ground models may be incomplete or incorrect and typically do change, usually incrementally; however, in each development phase there is one well-defined ground model which has to be related to its implementing code. This holds also in a more general sense for system evolution over time, as explained below.

Here and above, what it means to be ‘sufficiently precise’ depends on the given problem and problem domain. The degree of precision must permit to perform the model inspection described in Sect. 2.2.

This is the reason why we changed the initially chosen name ‘primary model’ [9, p. 392] into ‘ground model’.

See my talk A modular high-level definition of the dynamics of C sharp to the group on September 27, 2000.

See my talk Abstract Operational Model for the Semantics of C# delivered at the Microsoft Research Rotor Workshop, 23.-26.7.2002 (Queen’s College, Cambridge).

In [57, p. 163] such expressions are called ‘ground terms’ whose meaning is established by ‘designations’, relating the ground terms directly to phenomena one can observe in the real world. Note that designations are expressed in natural language.

The epistemological reason for this at first sight surprising conceptual comprehensiveness of ASMs is what is known as ASM Thesis, see [40, 41, 80, 81] for recent work and detailed references to the literature on the thesis.

In earlier publications we have called this a verification method problem, but since the word ‘verification’ carries a connotation of mathematical justification method, we move here to the more appropriate term ‘evidence’.

In [45], which contains a detailed evaluation of the pro and contra for executable specifications, it is rightly pointed out that ‘non-executable’ and ‘declarative’ are really different terms, as illustrated by the programming interpretation of Horn clauses in logic programming languages. Note also that since Horn clauses are a reduction class of first-order logic [16, Ch. 5.1], their computational interpretation is Turing complete so that using them implies no limitation of expressivity, at least in principle.

For example, in the ASM method [26] one often uses purely declarative descriptions for complex back components, separating their definition from the abstract operational model of the system core under study.

In fact, the use of the ASM method is compatible with and integratable into most software development frameworks.

In the ASM method these refinements are called vertical refinement, which implement abstractions, as distinguished from horizontal refinements which extend a system by additional functionalities.

See the footnote above on the various forms of the ASM Thesis.

For an investigation of other modeling concepts see [42, 87].

In the theoretical literature the prevailing view is determined by a search for compositional design and proof patterns, but it will be hard to find patterns for composing complex systems out of a large number of small simple models and a fortiori compositional refinement patterns in practice, in particular for modeling cyber-physical systems, simply because, as has been observed in [58], ‘Compositionality is not found in the real physical world’.

Abrial, J.-R.: The B-Book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)MATHCrossRef

Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B. Cambridge University Press, New York (2010)MATHCrossRef

Artho, C., Havelund, K., Kumar, R., Yamagata, Y.: Domain-specific languages with scala. In: Butler, M., Conchon, S., Zaïdi, F. (eds.) ICFEM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9407, pp. 1–16. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25423-4_1CrossRef

Back, R., Kurki-Suoni, R.: Decentralization of process nets with centralized control. Technical report Ser. A, No. 58, Department of Computer Science at Abo Akademi, Abo, Finland, February 1988

Batory, D., Börger, E.: Modularizing theorems for software product lines: the Jbook case study. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 14(12), 2059–2082 (2008)

Berry, G.: Formally unifying modeling and design for embedded systems - a personal view. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 134–149. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_11CrossRef

Börger, E.: A logical operational semantics of full Prolog. Part I: selection core and control. In: Börger, E., Büning, H.K., Richter, M.M. (eds.) CSL 1989. LNCS, vol. 440, pp. 36–64. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-52753-2_31CrossRef

Börger, E.: A logical operational semantics of full Prolog. Part II: built-in predicates for database manipulations. In: Rovan, B. (ed.) MFCS 1990. LNCS, vol. 452, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0029592CrossRef

Börger, E.: Logic programming: the evolving algebra approach. In: Pehrson, B., Simon, I. (eds.) IFIP 13th World Computer Congress. Technology/Foundations, vol. 1, pp. 391–395. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1994)

10.

Błlorger, E.: Review of E. W. Dijkstra and C. S. Scholten. Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics. Springer, Heidelberg (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3228-5; Science of Computer Programming 23, 1–11 (1994)

11.

Börger, E.: The ASM refinement method. Form. Aspects Comput. 15, 237–257 (2003)MATHCrossRef

12.

Börger, E.: The abstract state machines method for modular design and analysis of programming languages. J. Logic Comput. 27(2), 417–439 (2014)MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

13.

Börger, E., Dässler, K.: Prolog: DIN papers for discussion. ISO/IEC JTCI SC22 WG17 Prolog Standardization Document 58, National Physical Laboratory (1990)

14.

Börger, E., Durdanović, I.: Correctness of compiling Occam to Transputer code. Comput. J. 39(1), 52–92 (1996)CrossRef

15.

Börger, E., Durdanović, I., Rosenzweig, D.: Occam: specification and compiler correctness. Part I: simple mathematical interpreters. In: Montanari, U., Olderog, E.R. (eds.) Proceedings of the PROCOMET 1994, IFIP Working Conference on Programming Concepts, Methods and Calculi, North-Holland, pp. 489–508 (1994)

16.

Börger, E., Grädel, E., Gurevich, Y.: The Classical Decision Problem. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). Second printing in “Universitext”, Springer 2001

17.

Börger, E., Fruja, G., Gervasi, V., Stärk, R.: A high-level modular definition of the semantics of C#. Theor. Comput. Sci. 336(2–3), 235–284 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

18.

Börger, E., Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E.: Abstract state machines. A method for system specification and analysis. In: Frappier, M., Habrias, H. (eds.) Software Specification Methods: An Overview Using a Case Study, pp. 103–119. HERMES Sc. Publ. (2006)

19.

Börger, E., Joannou, P., Parnas, D.L.: Practical Methods for Code Documentation and Inspection, vol. 178. Dagstuhl Seminar No. 9720, Schloss Dagstuhl, International Conference and Research Center for Computer Science, May 1997

20.

Börger, E., Mearelli, L.: Integrating ASMs into the software development life cycle. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 3(5), 603–665 (1997)MATH

21.

Börger, E., Päppinghaus, P., Schmid, J.: Report on a practical application of ASMs in software design. In: Gurevich, Y., Kutter, P.W., Odersky, M., Thiele, L. (eds.) ASM 2000. LNCS, vol. 1912, pp. 361–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44518-8_20CrossRef

22.

Börger, E., Raschke, A.: Modeling Companion for Software Practitioners. Springer, Heidelberg (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56641-1. For Corrigenda and lecture material on themes treated in the book see http://modelingbook.informatik.uni-ulm.de

23.

Börger, E., Rosenzweig, D.: A mathematical definition of full Prolog. Sci. Comput. Program. 24, 249–286 (1995)MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

24.

Börger, E., Rosenzweig, D.: The WAM - definition and compiler correctness. In: Beierle, C., Plümer, L. (eds.) Logic Programming: Formal Methods and Practical Applications. Studies in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 11, Chapter 2, pp. 20–90. North-Holland (1995)

25.

Börger, E., Schewe, K.-D.: Concurrent abstract state machines. Acta Informatica 53(5), 469–492 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00236-015-0249-7. Listed as Notable Article in ACM 21th Annual BEST OF COMPUTING, see http://www.computingreviews.com/recommend/bestof/notableitems.cfm?bestYear=2016MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

26.

Börger, E., Stärk, R.F.: Abstract State Machines. A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18216-7MATHCrossRef

27.

Börger, E., Stärk, R.F.: Exploiting abstraction for specification reuse. The Java/C# case study. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2003. LNCS, vol. 3188, pp. 42–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30101-1_3MATHCrossRef

28.

Brooks, F.P.: No silver bullet: essence and accidents of software engineering. Computer 20(4), 10–19 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRef

29.

Broy, M., Havelund, K., Kumar, R.: Towards a unified view of modeling and programming. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part II. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 238–257. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_17CrossRef

30.

The CoreASM Project. http://www.coreasm.org and https://github.com/coreasm/, since 2005

31.

Del Castillo, G.: The ASM Workbench. A Tool Environment for Computer-Aided Analysis and Validation of Abstract State Machine Models. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Paderborn, Germany (2001). Published in HNI-Verlagsschriftenreihe, vol. 83

32.

Derrick, J., Boiten, E.A.: Refinement in Z and Object-Z. Springer, London (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0257-1MATHCrossRef

33.

Dijkstra, E.: Guarded commands, non-determinacy and formal derivation of programs. Commun. ACM 18(8), 453–457 (1975). Also documented as EWD 472MATHCrossRef

34.

Dmitriev, S.: Language oriented programming: The next programming paradigm. onBoard Electronic Monthly Magazine, April 2010. http://www.onboard.jetbrains.com/articles/04/10/lop/index.html

35.

Dold, A.: A formal representation of Abstract State Machines using PVS. Verifix Technical report Ulm/6.2, Universität Ulm, Germany, July 1998

36.

Ernst, G., Pfähler, J.: Modular, crash-safe refinement for ASMs with submachines. Sci. Comput. Program. 131, 3–21 (2016). Alloy, B, TLA, VDM and Z (ABZ 2014)CrossRef

37.

Ernst, G., Pfähler, J., Schellhorn, G., Reif, W.: Inside a verified flash file system: transactions and garbage collection. In: Gurfinkel, A., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) VSTTE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9593, pp. 73–93. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29613-5_5CrossRef

38.

Ernst, G., Schellhorn, G., Haneberg, D., Pfähler, J., Reif, W.: Verification of a virtual filesystem switch. In: Cohen, E., Rybalchenko, A. (eds.) VSTTE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8164, pp. 242–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54108-7_13CrossRef

39.

Fehnker, A., van Glabbeek, R., Hoefner, P., McIver, A., Portmann, M., Tan, W.L.: A process algebra for wireless mesh networks used for modelling, verifying and analysing AODV. Technical report 5513, NICTA, Brisbane, Australia (2013)

40.

Ferrarotti, F., Schewe, K.-D., Tec, L.: A behavioural theory for reflective sequential algorithms. In: Petrenko, A.K., Voronkov, A. (eds.) PSI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10742, pp. 117–131. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74313-4_10CrossRef

41.

Ferrarotti, F., Schewe, K.-D., Tec, L., Wang, Q.: A new thesis concerning synchronised parallel computing - simplified parallel ASM thesis. Theor. Comp. Sci. 649, 25–53 (2016)MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

42.

Fleischmann, A., Oppl, S., Schmidt, W., Stary, C.: Ganzheitliche Digitalisierung von Prozessen. Springer, Heidelberg (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22648-0. Open Access BookCrossRef

43.

Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C., Obermeier, S., Börger, E.: Subject-Oriented Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32392-8. http://www.springer.com/978-3-642-32391-1 (Open Access Book)CrossRef

44.

Fruja, N.G.: Type Safety of C# and .NET CLR. Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zürich (2006)

45.

Fuchs, N.E.: Specifications are (preferably) executable. Softw. Eng. J. 7, 323–334 (1992)CrossRef

46.

Gervasi, V., Riccobene, E.: From English to ASM: on the process of deriving a formal specification from a natural language one. In Integration of Tools for Rigorous Software Construction and Analysis, volume 3(9) of Dagstuhl Report, pp. 85–90 (2014). Dagstuhl Seminar 13372 organized by Uwe Glässer, Stefan Hallerstede, Michael Leuschel, Elvinia Riccobene, 08.–13 September 2013. https://doi.org/10.4230/DagRep.3.9.74, URN: urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-43584, http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2014/4358/

47.

Goerigk, W., et al.: Compiler correctness and implementation verification: The Verifix approach. In: Fritzson, P. (ed.) International Conference on Compiler Construction, Proceedings Poster Session of CC 1996, IDA Technical Report LiTH-IDA-R-96-12, Linköping, Sweden (1996)

48.

Grandy, H., Bischof, M., Stenzel, K., Schellhorn, G., Reif, W.: Verification of Mondex electronic purses with KIV: from a security protocol to verified code. In: Cuellar, J., Maibaum, T., Sere, K. (eds.) FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5014, pp. 165–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68237-0_13CrossRef

49.

Granger, C.: Coding is not the new literacy, January 2015. http://www.chris-granger.com/2015/01/26/coding-is-not-the-new-literacy/. Consulted 01 December 2017

50.

Hall, J.A.: Taking Z seriously. In: Bowen, J.P., Hinchey, M.G., Till, D. (eds.) ZUM 1997. LNCS, vol. 1212, pp. 87–91. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0027285CrossRef

51.

Haneberg, D., Grandy, H., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G.: Verifying smart card applications: an ASM approach. In: Davies, J., Gibbons, J. (eds.) IFM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4591, pp. 313–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73210-5_17CrossRef

52.

Haneberg, D., Moebius, N., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Stenzel, K.: Mondex: engineering a provable secure electronic purse. Int. J. Softw. Inform. 5(1), 159–184 (2011). http://www.ijsi.org

53.

Haneberg, D., Schellhorn, G., Grandy, H., Reif, W.: Verification of Mondex electronic purses with KIV: from transactions to a security protocol. Form. Aspects Comput. 20(1), 41–59 (2008)CrossRef

54.

Havelund, K.: Data automata in scala. In: Leucker, M., Wang, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering (TASE), pp. 1–9. IEEE Computer Society Press (2014)

55.

Havelund, K., Joshi, R.: Modeling and monitoring of hierarchical state machines in scala. In: Romanovsky, A., Troubitsyna, E.A. (eds.) SERENE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10479, pp. 21–36. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65948-0_2CrossRef

56.

Hayes, I.J., Jones, C.B.: Specifications are not (necessarily) executable. Softw. Eng. J. 4(6), 330–33 (1989)CrossRef

57.

Jackson, M.: Problem Frames. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2001)

58.

Jackson, M.: The right-hand side problem: Research topics in RE. In: RE Silver Jubilee, RE 2017, Lisbon, 6 September 2017

59.

The KIV System. http://www.informatik.uni-augsburg.de/lehrstuehle/swt/se/kiv/

60.

Lamport, L.: Specifying Systems: The TLA+ Language and Tools for Hardware and Software Engineers. Addison-Wesley (2002). http://lamport.org

61.

Lamport, L., Paulson, L.C.: Should your specification language be typed? ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 21(3), 502–526 (1999)CrossRef

62.

Leibniz, G.W.: Dialogus de connexione inter res et verba. Leibniz, G.W.: Philosophische Schriften, August 1677. Edited by Leibniz-Forschungsstelle der Universität Münster, vol. 4 A, n.8. Akademie Verlag (1999)

63.

Leveson, N.G.: Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Engineering Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)CrossRef

64.

Lewerentz, C., Lindner, T. (eds.): Formal Development of Reactive Systems. LNCS, vol. 891. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58867-1MATHCrossRef

65.

Mearelli, L.: Refining an ASM specification of the production cell to C++ code. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 3(5), 666–688 (1997)MATH

66.

Meta Programming System. https://www.jetbrains.com/mps/

67.

Naur, P.: Programming as Theory Building. Microprocessing and Microprogramming, vol. 15 (1985)

68.

Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., Das, S.: Ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing. Technical report RFC 3561, Copyright (C) The Internet Society, Network Working Group, July 2003. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3561

69.

Pfähler, J., Ernst, G., Bodenmüller, S., Schellhorn, G., Reif, W.: Modular verification of order-preserving write-back caches. In: Polikarpova, N., Schneider, S. (eds.) IFM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10510, pp. 375–390. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66845-1_25CrossRef

70.

Popper, K.: Logik der Forschung. Springer, Heidelberg (1935)MATHCrossRef

71.

Schellhorn, G.: Verification of ASM refinements using generalized forward simulation. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 7(11), 952–979 (2001)MathSciNet

72.

Schellhorn, G.: ASM refinement and generalizations of forward simulation in data refinement: a comparison. Theor. Comput. Sci. 336(2–3), 403–436 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

73.

Schellhorn, G.: ASM refinement preserving invariants. J. UCS 14(12), 1929–1948 (2008)MathSciNetMATH

74.

Schellhorn, G.: Completeness of ASM refinement. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 214, 25–49 (2008)MATHCrossRef

75.

Schellhorn, G.: Completeness of fair ASM refinement. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(9), 756–773 (2011)MATHCrossRef

76.

Schellhorn, G., Ahrendt, W.: Reasoning about abstract state machines: the WAM case study. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 3(4), 377–413 (1997)MathSciNetMATH

77.

Schellhorn, G., Ahrendt, W.: The WAM case study: verifying compiler correctness for Prolog with KIV. In: Bibel, W., Schmitt, P. (eds.) Automated Deduction - A Basis for Applications, volume III: Applications, pp. 165–194. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)MATHCrossRef

78.

Schellhorn, G., Ernst, G., Pfähler, J., Haneberg, D., Reif, W.: Development of a verified flash file system. ABZ 2014. LNCS, vol. 8477, pp. 9–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43652-3_2CrossRef

79.

Schellhorn, G., Grandy, H., Haneberg, D., Moebius, N., Reif, W.: A systematic verification approach for Mondex electronic purses using ASMs. In: Abrial, J.-R., Glässer, U. (eds.) Rigorous Methods for Software Construction and Analysis. LNCS, vol. 5115, pp. 93–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11447-2_7CrossRef

80.

Schewe, K.-D., Ferrarotti, F., Tec, L., Wang, Q.: Distributed adaptive systems: theory, specification, reasoning. In: Butler, M., Raschke, A., Hoang, T.S., Reichl, K. (eds.) ABZ 2018. LNCS, vol. 10817, pp. 16–30. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91271-4_2CrossRef

81.

Schewe, K.-D., Ferrarotti, F., Tec, L., Wang, Q., An, W.: Evolving concurrent systems: behavioural theory and logic. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference (ACSW 2017), pp. 77:1–77:10. ACM (2017)

82.

Schmid, J.: Executing ASM specifications with AsmGofer. https://tydo.eu/AsmGofer

83.

Schmid, J.: Compiling abstract state machines to C++. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 7(11), 1069–1088 (2001)

84.

Selic, B.: Programming \(\subset \) Modeling \(\subset \) Engineering. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 11–26. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_2CrossRef

85.

Somers, J.: The coming software apocalypse. The Atlantic, 26 September 2017. Email newsletter, consulted on 11 November 2017

86.

Stärk, R.F., Schmid, J., Börger, E.: Java and the Java Virtual Machine: Definition, Verification, Validation. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59495-3MATHCrossRef

87.

Thalheim, B., Nissen, I. (eds.): Wissenschaft und Kunst der Modellierung: Kieler Zugang zur Definition, Nutzung und Zukunft. Philosophische Analyse/Philosophical Analysis. vol. 64, De Gruyter (2015)

88.

Ward, M.P.: Language oriented programming. Softw. Concepts Tools 15(4), 147–161 (1994)

89.

Zimmerman, W., Gaul, T.: On the construction of correct compiler back-ends: an ASM approach. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 3(5), 504–567 (1997)MATH

Title: Why Programming Must Be Supported by Modeling and How
Author: Egon Börger
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Modeling
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03417-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-03418-4

Copyright Year: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03418-4_6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner