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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,78a1af350f4cf4b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Win2000 has 63,000 'defects' Date: 2000/02/15 Message-ID: <2000Feb15.143333.1@eisner>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 586251231 References: <38A989B7.2D4D6B56@maths.unine.ch> X-Trace: news.decus.org 950643217 16149 KILGALLEN [216.44.122.34] Organization: LJK Software Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Hyman Rosen writes: > Gautier writes: >> Urging developers to clean up their code, a Microsoft exec >> says: 'How many of you would spend $500 on a piece of >> software with over 63,000 potential known defects?' It >> ships Thursday. >> >> Not everyone will be having fun at Microsoft Corp. next week. While >> the software giant and its partners celebrate the arrival of Windows >> 2000 on Thursday, Feb. 17, hundreds of members of the Windows >> development team will be busy cleaning up the mess. >> >> Someone to sell or install them poor an Ada compiler ? ;o) G. > > Why do you think the defects have anything to do with the language > used to develop Windows 2000? Do you know that the defects are > coding errors, as opposed to being design errors or unimplemented > features? I am convinced that a great many of their defects are coding issues. I am not convinced that fixing all the coding issues (by any method) would not still leave a great many other defects, probably enough to make the fact that coding issues had been fixed invisible to the user. I am not at all convinced that defects enumerated by Microsoft (or any other vendor) cover a reasonable fraction of the total defects in the software.