Postlude Reflections and Open Problems

  • Mary Shaw


As we gained experience with Alphard, both our ideas about Alphard itself and our ideas about methodology and language design evolved. It was possible for some of these new perceptions to feed back directly into Alphard. Others, however, required a significant departure from decisions already in place. In this final set of retrospective notes we assess the impact of the Alphard work and discuss some of the ideas that can serve as points of departure for new work. We begin with some remarks on Alphard itself — its status, its impact, and some design decisions we would now make differently. We then discuss some issues that have emerged from the abstract data type research and that remain as open research questions.


Encapsulation Alan Milton Aliasing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Ambler77]
    Allen L. Ambler, Donald I. Good, James C. Browne, Wilhelm F. Burger, Richard M. Cohen, Charles G. Hoch, and Robert E. Wells. “Gypsy: A Language for Specification and Implementation of Verifiable Programs.” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 12, 3 (March 1977).Google Scholar
  2. [DOD8O]
    United States Department of Defense. Reference Manual for the Ada Programming Language. 1980.Google Scholar
  3. [Gerhart79]
    Susan L. Gerhart, David S. Wile. “Preliminary Report on the Delta Experiment.” Proceedings of the Conference on Specifications of Reliable Software, Boston MA, April 1979, pp. 198–211.Google Scholar
  4. [Gerhart80]
    Susan L. Gerhart, et al. “An Overview of Affirm: A Specification and Verification System.” Information Processing 80, S. H. Lavington (ed.), North Holland, 1980, pp. 343–347.Google Scholar
  5. [Heninger80]
    K. L. Heninger. “Specifying Software Requirements for Complex Systems: New Techniques and Their Applications.” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-6, 1, (January 1980), pp. 2–12.Google Scholar
  6. [Lampson77]
    B. W. Lampson, J. J. Horning, R. L. London, J. G. Mitchell, and G. J. Popek. “Report on the Programming Language Euclid.” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 12, 2 (February 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Levin77]
    Roy Levin. “Program Structures for Exceptional Condition Handling.” Carnegie-Mellon University Techical Report, 1977 (PhD Thesis).Google Scholar
  8. [Liskov78]
    Barbara Liskov, Alan Snyder, Russell Atkinson, and Craig Schaffen “Abstraction Mechanisms in CLU.” Communications of the ACM, 20, 8, August 1978 (pp. 564–576 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Musser80]
    David R. Musser. “Abstract Data Type Specification in the Affirm System.” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-6, 1, (January 1980), pp. 24–32.Google Scholar
  10. [Nestor79]
    J. Nestor and M. Van Deusen. RED Language Reference Manual. Intermetrics, Inc., 1979.Google Scholar
  11. [Walker80]
    Bruce J. Walker, Richard A. Kemmerer, and Gerlad J. Popek. “Specification and Verification of the UCLA Unix Security Kernel.” Communications of the ACM, 23, 2, (February 1980), pp. 118–131.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [Wensley80]
    John H. Wensley, Leslie Lamport, Jack Goldberg, Milton W. Green, Karl N. Levitt, P. M. Melliar-Smith, Robert E. Shostak, and Charles B. Weinstock. “SIFT: Design and Analysis of a Fault-Tolerant Computer for Aircraft Control.” Proceedings of the IEEE, 66, 10, (October 1980), pp. 1240–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Woodenman75]
    David A. Fisher. “Woodenman Set of Criteria and Needed Characteristics for a Common DOD High Order Programming Language.” Institute for Defense Analysis Working Paper, August 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Shaw
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentCarnegie-Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations