Sure it is -- in a few places, anyway. It's taught mostly in theory clbuttes (*), at a few schools, and in general it's not well regarded by either the students or, as far as I know, the professional development community. (I would be pleased to be corrected on the latter point, but it's my impression.)
((*) These are the courses that strongly resemble math courses, and in which students are more likely to be asked to write proofs and solve math-like problems than to write programs. I say this only because sometimes when I say "theory" I seem to lead you astray .... )
A problem is that it may be difficult to teach this stuff in a way that connects with the real world -- or at least, that has been my experience in trying to teach the very basics of it in a math-for-CS-majors course. The notion of formally proving correctness is often introduced with trivial examples, where the cumbersome mechanisms of doing a line-by-line proof don't seem to add any value. "It's obvious this code works; why prove it?"
The textbook I often use includes a proof that Euclid's algorithm for finding greatest common divisor works. I think this is a much better example of the value of formal techniques. The algorithm is far from obvious, and coming up with a set of test cases .... Not so obvious either. But there is a nice proof, which whether it helps with understanding the algorithm or not, does make a good case for its correctness. To me this example demonstrates the value of the formal approach. I don't know how well it convinces the students.
I also try to convince the students that the same techniques, applied with slightly less detail and rigor, are really a help in thinking about whether programs work. The idea of a loop invariant, for example, is behind how I think about writing loops, and I'm fairly sure that my ability to write correct code improved dramatically when I was taught this approach in a course in graduate school. (It was an upper-division undergrad course in algorithms, taught by someone who believed in this kind of approach.)
A problem is that I teach this in the context of a course that's supposed to cover many other topics, and .... well, if there's a way to do it well in the time I have, I haven't found it. I think many instructors would just not bother, and yet this stuff is not, as far as I can tell, covered anywhere else in the curriculum, and I think it's shameful that students can graduate and not know what a loop invariant (in the context of formal proofs of correctness) is! Well, I guess we have finite time, and everyone thinks that their favorite topics are crucial ....
Well, proposed proofs can be wrong. Maybe that's your point? Also, proving that an algorithm meets...
Doesn't it though. I'll leave it too.
it is possible as the heads flew closer it was easier to polish a flat disk to...
What he's getting at is there isn't any hardware protection available for DOS- at least on the pre-286 x86 cpus, and due to the design buttumptions of the OS...
-- B. L. Mbuttingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.