Specifications Don't Exist (2025)

(galois.com)

36 points | by surprisetalk 6 days ago

2 comments

  • ivanbakel 1 hour ago
    A very valid take on spec writing. It sometimes feels like the research on formal verification is like the drunkard searching under the lamppost, in that the target is often a domain which is itself well-suited to a particular kind of computer science being done on it.

    However, I think there is a middle ground between the "naturally verifiable" and the difficult cases. Certain domains, like banking apps, can want correctness guarantees about UI behaviour. A closed-off app can be very normative, so in theory specs like "the user did this action and confirmed it" can be made meaningful. But tying specs to UI is a tricky thing, and it's clearly volatile in a way function boundaries are not - apps go through redesigns, styles and elements move, etc. The abstraction of a UI as a state machine isn't hard to imagine, but actually hooking a spec into the program is a problem unto itself, and the common response is to simply ignore these problematic domains and do something easier like a backend spec that doesn't have to deal with the questions that aren't PL-shaped.

  • mad44 1 hour ago
    There are now projects like Specula that, using LLMs, enable us to derive specifications from the implementation, and somewhat paradoxically, use those specifications to find bugs in the implementation. https://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/2026/08/specula-scaling-fo...

    Secondly, I think the open partial specs, composable specs would help address the problems with monolithic specs that Dodd's cites. https://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/2026/08/composition-and-mo...