Design considerations for new programming languages

  • Gerhard Seegmüller
Session 1: System Design Considerations
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 49)


Enhanced language quality for construction of safer programs may be achieved by careful restriction of widely accepted general rules. Self-imposed programming disciplines should be overtly documentable in a language. Interactive programming languages have their proper place in heuristic exploration. For safer program construction they are even more inadequate than classical higher languages.

Systems for program construction should allow for high-level interactive use. They are examples of the type of application system which represents the body of knowledge of a certain application area in a way which allows safe and convenient usage of such knowledge.


Public Procedure Interface Problem Exception Handling Procedure Module Program Construction 
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.

15. Literature

  1. 1.
    P. Wegner, Three Computer Cultures: Computer Technology, Computer Mathematics and Computer Science. In "Advances in Computers", Academic Press, Vol. 10, 1970, pp 7–78.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Wirth, On the Design of Programming Languages, Proc. IFIP-Congress 74, 2, pp. 386–393 (North Holland).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Goos, Systemprogrammiersprachen und Strukturiertes Programmieren, in "Programming Methodology", Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Nr. 23, pp. 203–224 (Springer 1975).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Wirth, Programming Languages: What to Demand and How to Assess Them, Institut für Informatik, ETH Zürich, Nr. 17, March 1976.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. De Remer, H. Kron, Programming-in-the-Large versus Programming-in-the-Small. Proc. Reliability Conference, Los Angeles, April 1975.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. L. Parnas, Software Engineering or Methods for the Multi-Person Construction of Multi-Version-Programs. In "Programming Methodology", Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Nr. 23, pp. 225–235. (See also the bibliography of this paper.)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Wirth, Modula, A Language for Modular Multiprogramming. Institut für Informatik, ETH Zürich, Nr. 18, March 1976.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Goos, Die Programmiersprache BALG (vorläufige Fassung). Institut für Informatik, Universität Karlsruhe, 1975.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Brinch Hansen, The Programming Language Concurrent Pascal. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-1, no. 2, pp. 199–207.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Partsch, P. Pepper, A Family of Rules for Recursion Removal Related to the "Towers of Hanoi" Problem. Institut für Informatik, TU München, Bericht 7612, Juli 1976.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ASTRA Language Manual, Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, to appear.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Correll et al., A Survey of the Language System ASTRA, a Tool which Aids in Designing, Programming and Controlling System Software. Leibniz-Rechenzentrum München, LRZ-Bericht 7503, June 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Seegmüller
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations