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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ell@access.digex.net (Ell) Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/04 Message-ID: <35f07709.88072681@news.erols.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388008209 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sgror$je8$3@news.indigo.ie> <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6shbca$66c$1@news.indigo.ie> <6shhq7$lut$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sjbso$1lk$2@news.indigo.ie> <6sjijg$36r$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6skhcm$1dr$2@news.indigo.ie> <6skqf3$9g0$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f1f9fe.9111641@news.erols.com> <35f23ce2.7649859@news.erols.com> <6snn1b$c90$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35ef7dff.24318728@news.erols.com> <6sor5t$5i8$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F06B0C.F27D7513@s054.aone.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 904952477 6000 207.172.120.51 (4 Sep 1998 23:41:17 GMT) Organization: Universe Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: ell@access.digex.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Loryn Jenkins wrote: >> Then clearly you have not read much of Dijkstra. The citation you want is >> the citation I have given you many many times. Go look it up Elliott. >Yes, look it up. Read it. Acknowledge that that is what Dijkstra was >saying. How can I acknowledge that, if I haven't seen it? And you all can't point to that stuff on flowcharting as some kind of proof that the founders of SP said we should adhere to se/se. >Remember, you *may* disagree with him. But it is silly not reading what >he actually said. That book is out of print and RCM knows it. If RCM had *any* shred of text to prove that they explicitly advocated se/se in structured coding he would quote it. > And it is fantasy arguing that he wasn't discussing >se/se. It's a deplorable attempt at deception for RCM to state that se/se is a cornerstone of SP without a shred of evidence. It's fantastic gullibility to think RCM is right about se/se without a shred of evidence; to believe him based on faith, because I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you can't show me any proof either. Elliott