I don't think it'll take more time than I expect, but I take your point.
Like I said, I think formal analysis of software development is a laudable goal that should be pursued. But in many ways, software is so much more complex than other engineering fields that it becomes increasingly difficult if the development is not carefully controlled (something that Dijkstra is a big believer in). I know that Dijkstra recognizes that it is not an easy problem to solve, and that he feels that computer scientists have not adequately researched this area. My main point was more about his general attitude to computer engineers than to his actual point.
I agree with you entirely. A huge problem is in mindset and culture.
I've mentioned formal methods here on HN before and been essentially
shouted down. Which seems odd considering the hacker-above-the-commoners ethos HN wears on its sleeve.
But I digress, I think in the next few years as functional languages
become more mainstream we'll see a huge uptake in formal methods.
Not end to end mind you, but of the low level proover type tools.
Formal project planning and design languages still take too
much training to be widely accepted. Can you imaging a ruby hacker
analyzing and writing up his code in Z language before they code?
Neither can I. But any amount of progress on this front is a good thing.
Like I said, I think formal analysis of software development is a laudable goal that should be pursued. But in many ways, software is so much more complex than other engineering fields that it becomes increasingly difficult if the development is not carefully controlled (something that Dijkstra is a big believer in). I know that Dijkstra recognizes that it is not an easy problem to solve, and that he feels that computer scientists have not adequately researched this area. My main point was more about his general attitude to computer engineers than to his actual point.
He addresses this well in this EWD Manuscript:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/EWD1304...