A comparison of tools for teaching formal software verification

Abstract

We compare four tools regarding their suitability for teaching formal software verification, namely the Frege Program Prover, the Key system, Perfect Developer, and the Prototype Verification System ( PVS ). We evaluate them on a suite of small programs, which are typical of courses dealing with Hoare-style verification, weakest preconditions, or dynamic logic. Finally we report our experiences with using Perfect Developer in class.

Another approach for resisting student resistance to formal methods

“…The longer we wait, the more students may fall behind [5,9]. By using a programming language that students will want to know, relying on interesting and diverse examples, and emphasizing practical applicability of the approach, it is hoped that we can capture and maintain student interest and motivate future study of formal methods.…”

“…Some educators carefully choose exercises whose solutions are directly facilitated by application of formal reasoning [12,9], or use real-life examples [2,4]. Reliance on math is often minimized as to not "scare" students away [14], and tools are often touted as helping to engage the students in the material [6,5,3,8] (and see the position statements in [1]). Lightweight approaches [10,11] are often used to bridge the gap between using a programming language and a full-fledged formal method; formal methods have also been lightened by not requiring formal proofs [13].…”

Computer-Assisted Program Reasoning Based on a Relational Semantics of Programs

“…the TFM conference series [8,5,12]. A comparative survey of formal methods courses in Europe is given in [19]; a comparison of tools for teaching program verification is presented in [10]. In general, most knowledge on formal methods education is based on personal experience reports; there is hardly any scientific evidence for the superiority of any particular approach.…”

Using Simulation Games in Teaching Formal Methods for Software Development

“…In the courses presented they focus on lightweight formal methods, or a lightweight use of formal methods with greater possibilities, but they also mention other courses, which deal with a "heavier" stuff like formal verification. Teaching heavyweight FM is the topic of Feinerer and Gernot (2009), who review four tools with respect to their suitability for teaching formal software verification by theorem proving. They state that despite the tools for formal software verification didn't reach the automation level of model checkers used in hardware verification, they have become automated enough to be used more often in the industry.…”

“…In (Cristiá, 2006) the situation in teaching FM in Argentina is described. Its author especially deals with the reasons why to teach formal methods in a country without any industry that uses them and, together with Feinerer and Gernot (2009) shares our belief that FM should be used more often in the industry and that this can be achieved via properly educated students. While virtually all educators stress out an importance of good tool support, Liu et al (2009) suggest handwriting formal specifications as the best way to learn syntax and semantics of given formal language.…”