On the Role of Scientific Thought.¶
Dijkstra, E. W. (1982). On the Role of Scientific Thought. Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Ceteris Paribus
- In software it is modular reasoning and separation of concerns, reasoning about a function with the rest of the program held constant.
This sourceArticulates separation of concerns — reasoning about one component with the rest of the program held constant — the modular-reasoning analogue of ceteris paribus.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Dijkstra argues for separating concerns by studying one aspect of a program in isolation (correctness, efficiency, desirability), but does not speak of holding the rest of the program constant or of modular reasoning.
“one is willing to study in depth an aspect of one's subject matter in isolation for the sake of its own consistency”
- In software it is modular reasoning and separation of concerns, reasoning about a function with the rest of the program held constant.
- Interface
- Each team or system focuses on its own implementation; the interface is the agreed boundary.
This sourceArticulates "separation of concerns" as the disciplined isolation of aspects, the methodological foundation for modular decomposition through well-defined interfaces.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Dijkstra treats the specification as the interface splitting users' and builders' responsibilities, and values thin interfaces; he does not describe teams each focusing on their own implementation.
“It is the sole purpose of the specifications to act as the interface between the system's users and the system's builders.”
- Each team or system focuses on its own implementation; the interface is the agreed boundary.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:ea969cc32059 · see in the full table