Informatics pp 112-130 | Cite as

Thinking Tools for the Future of Computing Science

  • Cliff B. Jones
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2000)


This paper argues that “formal methods” can (continue to) provide the thinking tools for the future of computing science. Every significant engineering or scientific discipline has advanced only with systematic and formally based notations. To see just how ubiquitous the need for notation is, one can look beyond the sciences and observe the importance of written notation in the development of music. Map making is another area where the importance of notation and the understanding of the need for (levels of) abstraction is recognised. Formal methods provide notations to navigate the future of computing science.


Model Check Formal Method Operational Semantic Computing Science Grand Challenge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [BBD+00]
    J. Biccaregui, Matthew Bishop, Theo Dimitakos, Kevin Lano, Brian Matthews, and Brian Ritchie. Supporting co-use of VDM and B by translation. In J. S. Fitzgerald, editor, VDM in 2000, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. [CJ91]
    J. H. Cheng and C. B. Jones. On the usability of logics which handle partial functions. In C. Morgan and J. C. P. Woodcock, editors, 3rd Refinement Workshop, pages 51–69. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [CJ00]
    Pierre Collette and Cliff B. Jones. Enhancing the tractability of rely/guarantee specifications in the development of interfering operations. In Gordon Plotkin, Colin Stirling, and Mads Tofte, editors, Proof, Language and Interaction, chapter 10, pages 275–305. MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. [Col94]
    Pierre Collette. Design of Compositional Proof Systems Based on Assumption-Commitment Specifications-Application to UNITY. PhD thesis, Louvain-la-Neuve, June 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [Dij76]
    E. W. Dijkstra. A Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. [Din00]
    Jürgen Dingel. Systematic Parallel Programming. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000. CMU-CS-99-172.Google Scholar
  7. [dRE99]
    W. P. de Roever and K. Engelhardt. Data Refinement: Model-Oriented Proof Methods and Their Comparison. Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. [DS90]
    Edsger W Dijkstra and Carel S Scholten. Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics. Springer-Verlag, 1990. ISBN 0-387-96957-8, 3-540-96957-8.Google Scholar
  9. [Flo67]
    R.W. Floyd. Assigning meanings to programs. In Proc. Symp. in Applied Mathematics, Vol.19: Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 19–32. American Mathematical Society, 1967.Google Scholar
  10. [GJ96]
    J. R. Gurd and C. B. Jones. The global-yet-personal information system. In Ian Wand and Robin Milner, editors, Computing Tomorrow, pages 127–157. Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. [GNRR93]
    R. L. Grossman, A. Nerode, A. P. Ravn, and H. Rischel, editors. Hybrid Systems VIII, volume 736 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [HJ89]
    C. A. R. Hoare and C. B. Jones. Essays in Computing Science. Prentice Hall International, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [Hoa69]
    C. A. R. Hoare. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 12(10):576–580, 583, October 1969.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [Hoa85]
    C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. [Jac83]
    Michael Jackson. System Design. Prentice-Hall International, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. [Jac00]
    Michael Jackson. Problem Frames: Structring and Analysing Software Development Problems. Addison-Wesley, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. [Jon81]
    C. B. Jones. Development Methods for Computer Programs including a Notion of Interference. PhD thesis, Oxford University, June 1981. Printed as: Programming Research Group, Technical Monograph 25.Google Scholar
  18. [Jon92]
    C. B. Jones. The search for tractable ways of reasoning about programs. Technical Report UMCS-92-4-4, Manchester University, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. [Jon94]
    C. B. Jones. Process algebra arguments about an object-based design notation. In A. W. Roscoe, editor, A Classical Mind, chapter 14, pages 231–246. Prentice-Hall, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. [Jon96a]
    C. B. Jones. Accommodating interference in the formal design of concurrent object-based programs. Formal Methods in System Design,8(2):105–122, March 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [Jon96b]
    C. B. Jones. A rigorous approach to formal methods. IEEE, Computer, 29(4):20–21, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. [Jon99]
    C. B. Jones. Scientific decisions which characterize VDM. In FM’99 — Formal Methods, volume 1708 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 28–47. Springer-Verlag, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [Mid93]
    Cornelius A. Middelburg. Logic and Specification: Extending VDM-SL for advanced formal specification. Chapman and Hall, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. [Mil89]
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  25. [MPW92]
    R. Milner, J. Parrow, and D. Walker. A calculus of mobile processes. Information and Computation, 100:1–77, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. [Nor88]
    Donald A Norman. The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, 1988.Google Scholar
  27. [Owi75]
    S. Owicki. Axiomatic Proof Techniques for Parallel Programs. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, 1975. 75–251.Google Scholar
  28. [Plo81]
    G. D. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical report, Aarhus University, 1981.Google Scholar
  29. [Ran00]
    B. Randell. Facing up to faults. The Computer Jopurnal, 43(2):95–106, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [Rea90]
    James Reason. Human Error. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  31. [Rus99]
    John Rushby. Using model checking to help discover mode confusions and other automation surprises. In Proceedings of 3rd Workshop on Human Error, pages 1–18. HESSD’99, 1999.Google Scholar
  32. [San99]
    Davide Sangiorgi. Typed π-calculus at work: a correctness proof of Jones’s parallelisation transformation on concurrent objects. Theory and Practice of Object Systems, 5(1):25–34, 1999.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. [Sat75]
    Edwin H. Satterthwaite. Source Language Debugging Tools. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1975.Google Scholar
  34. [SG96]
    Mary Shaw and David Garlan. Sofware Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  35. [Sit74]
    R.L. Sites. Some thoughts on proving clean termination of programs. Technical Report STAN-CS-74-417, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, May 1974.Google Scholar
  36. [SS83]
    F. B. Schneider and R. D. Schlichting. Fail-stop processors: an approach to designing fault-tolerant computing systems. TOCS, 1(3):222–238, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [Ste66]
    T. B. Steel. Formal Language Description Languages for Computer Programming. North-Holland, 1966.Google Scholar
  38. [Stø90]
    K. Stølen. Development of Parallel Programs on Shared Data-Structures. PhD thesis, Manchester University, 1990. available as UMCS-91-1-1.Google Scholar
  39. [SW89]
    I. C. Smith and D. N. Wall. Programmamable electronic systems for reactor safety. Atom, (395), 1989.Google Scholar
  40. [WWW00a]
  41. [WWW00b]
  42. [WWW00c]
  43. [Xu92]
    Qiwen Xu. A Theory of State-based Parallel Programming. PhD thesis, Oxford University, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cliff B. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of NewcastleUK

Personalised recommendations