[Shootout-list] Ray tracer

[Jon Harrop]

On Sunday 19 June 2005 15:05, Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> On 2005-06-19 15:11, Jon Harrop wrote:
> ...deleted
>
> > Giving a program is the easiest way to get a "formal" specification.
>
> imho a program is over-specific. it contains lots of implementation
> details that should not be part of the sought after definition.

True. Although the algorithm and data structures are not required for the 
definition, I think it would actually help to have a working implementation. 
Still, no reason why we can't have both a description and an implementation.

> i think you are suggesting that any (computer) language could be used to
> define the test.

Yes, with a preference for concise ones.

> i think that would make it more difficult to get other 
> implementations of a test. some implementors would have to wait until a
> sutable (understandable to them) version exists, before they can start
> on their own.

I'd have thought that virtually all programmers would understand a common 
subset of languages well enough to translate it.

> i do no agree with this idea. i prefer english specifications, with
> details added if neccessary.

I think we'll be needing typeset mathematics then. :-)

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists