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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,5da92b52f6784b63 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Ariane-5: can you clarify? (Re: Please do not start a language war) Date: 1997/03/25 Message-ID: <33382FC4.44B7@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 228292268 References: <332B5495.167EB0E7@eiffel.com> Organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: William Clodius wrote: > > Ken Garlington wrote: > > > > I don't understand this argument at all. I can see only three ways in > > which > > assertions provide benefit: > > > > 1. Documentation for the human reader. However, if "free formatted > > in-code > > comments are too unreliable for this purpose", then this cannot be the > > primary benefit? > > The benefits can certainly be enhanced if the programming environment > provides means to automatically extract the information and provide it > in a clearly summarized form. This is the main benefit of Eiffel style > assertions. However, there are several environments that can do the same with comments, (e.g. SPARK) so this can't be an inherent advantage of Eiffel assertions. One could claim that having it defined in the language, as opposed to an add-on, enhances standardization (but does Eiffel have a standard that defines the "clearly summarized form" of these assertions?). However, even with this, I have several problems with assuming that documentation in the code, as opposed to a separate document, would have made a significant difference in the Ariane V case, for the reasons previously cited (low probability that the assertion would have been defined, insufficient data available to the human via the spec to analyze the assertion on reuse, difficulties in translating high-level flight profile data into specific parameter profiles for analysis on reuse, and general culture on the project regarding reusability.) > > -- > > William B. Clodius Phone: (505)-665-9370 > Los Alamos Nat. Lab., NIS-2 FAX: (505)-667-3815 > PO Box 1663, MS-C323 Group office: (505)-667-5776 > Los Alamos, NM 87545 Email: wclodius@lanl.gov -- LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality" For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or http://www.lmco.com