From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,27544cb48c942326 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.213.25.199 with SMTP id a7mr2360738ebc.6.1319726086121; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Path: l23ni47942bkv.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Length of unbounded_string. Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:34:37 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <1lj8ipv0wl4qj.1oxrb1x2pjmuv.dlg@40tude.net> References: <4ea68441$0$8041$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl> <4ea94067$0$6625$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <4ea95d17$0$7612$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2011-10-27T16:34:37+02:00 List-Id: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:31:03 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > OK, bad phrasing. Parts of a program that can be run in > isolation from the rest of the program, to see some effect, That is modularity. The purpose of having it modular is not directly testing. Also the way components/modules are factored out may help testing or hinder testing. E.g. you could develop modules in order to run the program in parallel, which would make testing significantly more difficult. >>> *) writing tests means documenting and verifying assumptions. >> >> It does not. >> >> A proper statement should sound like: the software must be developed in a >> way that would make it testable. > > OK, but testable is another void. (What is the meaning of > "testable" without invoking more definitions, recursively, It means that the design must allow testing for certain (specified upfront) properties of the software. Modularity is just a part of this equation. Think about integration tests. >> This has little to do with either documentation or understanding of a >> *given* implementation, just a separate issue. > > Interesting, but I had not meant to say something about existing > software that wasn't developed with testing all along driving > the writing process. Even so, the way software is used and understood differs from those while testing. Compare testing a computer game and playing it, testing a music record for defects and listening it etc. If testing would improve understanding then only because more time is invested in dealing with the program, not because testing helps it better than, for example, core review. BTW, 1. programmer, 2. tester, 3. technical writer classically are different roles. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de