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: 103376,fb1663c3ca80b502 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Simon Brady Subject: Re: Writing better software was: Design by Contract (was Re: Interesting thread in comp.lang.eiffel) Date: 2000/08/04 Message-ID: <398A29E2.B9813ECB@below.for.email.address>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 654268033 Cache-Post-Path: the-rowan.albatross.co.nz!sbrady@kakapo.otago.ac.nz Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <8ipvnj$inc$1@wanadoo.fr> <39654639.B3760EF2@eiffel.com> <3984AD1D.830B538@below.for.email.address> <3984DC2D.C707824@swbell.net> <3985F031.B4862B40@below.for.email.address> <39860178.3EC77DC9@below.for.email.address> <398A07DB.FD66D092@earthlink.net> X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: ns.albatross.co.nz X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Trace: sv2-ylQgFnqFsI2PxnJFwgr8eCsKYap8j6YZURqBowZ1yCZz8VKIrUd2NE+sqNGjAeW5J0Hs4Imr/Ng4k/G!95E0Cz2d/zYmzyR8c1RkIiYC Organization: University of Otago CS Dept X-Original-Trace: 4 Aug 2000 14:26:42 +1200, ns.albatross.co.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 21:26:45 CDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-08-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Robert I. Eachus" wrote: > > Simon Brady wrote: > > > Now that I think about it, it's wimpy to say "potentially" here. > > Software quality isn't just about lack of bugs, it's about _confidence_ > > that there's a lack of bugs. So if they cut testing (and hence lowered > > their confidence in the software), I would argue that they're still > > delivering a lower-quality product even if it happened to be bug-free. > > Of course, some might say such a purist approach is commercially naive, > > but then that's why I'm not a commercial programmer :-) > > There is a very subtle, but insidious fallacy in the above. Not to > do ANY testing is quite likely to result in catastrophic failure. On > the other hand, testing should always be one part, and often not the > largest part, of a well planned quality assurance program. A valid point well-made, Robert. I was rather sloppily using "testing" as shorthand for "all that process-related stuff that improves quality". Thanks for not letting me get away with such hand-waving (which, as you point out, could have disastrous consequences in a real project). Simon Brady sjbrady Research Assistant, Computer Science Dept. at University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand acm dot org