|
| This Article | ||
| | ||
| Share | ||
| Bibliographic References | ||
| Add to: | ||
| | ||
| Search | ||
| ||
| ASCII Text | x | ||
| L. Robinson, "A Formal Design for Softare," Computer, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 66, June, 1975. | |||
| BibTex | x | ||
| @article{ 10.1109/C-M.1975.218994, author = {L. Robinson}, title = {A Formal Design for Softare}, journal ={Computer}, volume = {8}, number = {6}, issn = {0018-9162}, year = {1975}, pages = {66}, doi = {http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/C-M.1975.218994}, publisher = {IEEE Computer Society}, address = {Los Alamitos, CA, USA}, } | |||
| RefWorks Procite/RefMan/Endnote | x | ||
| TY - MGZN JO - Computer TI - A Formal Design for Softare IS - 6 SN - 0018-9162 SP EP EPD - 66 A1 - L. Robinson, PY - 1975 KW - null VL - 8 JA - Computer ER - | |||
The major idea of SP is to divide a programming task into easily understandable units. Within these units, it may be of little consequence whether the language used is COBOL, FORTRAN, PL/1, or any of the new SP languages. Language design (such as control structures) may determine the size of the program which is the largest easily understandable unit. This is at best a local optimization. I have seen well-structured programs written in assembly language, FORTRAN, and APL?none of which are known for their facilities to enhance structured programming. However, any language claiming to enhance SP should provide a facility for connection among program units: this could be as complex as the abstract type mechanisms of Liskov's CLU or Wulf's ALPHARD, or it could be a simple procedure/macro facility. Poor design of these features limits the effectiveness of languages like FORTRAN and COBOL in the construction of well-structured programs. These facilities are often faked by a preprocessor or by system convention.
Citation:
L. Robinson, "A Formal Design for Softare," Computer, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 66, June 1975, doi:10.1109/C-M.1975.218994
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.

