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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: ell@access5.digex.net (Ell) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: <5cjohh$9pr@news3.digex.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212639259 organization: The Universe followup-to: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff (bobduff@world.std.com) wrote: : In article , Robert Dewar wrote: : >On the other hand, it is quite possible to generate high reliability code : >with no testing whatsoever. : I skept. : > ...For more information on this possibility (which : >often seems almost incredible to the test-debug crowd), read up on the : >cleanroom approach to generating software, an approach in which the development : >team is not permitted to do any testing! Not having the same team that creates code do the testing doesn't mean the project doesn't carry or see the importance of testing. Elliott : It's incredible to me, and I don't count myself among the "test-debug : crowd". I count myself among the "static type checking, and even : better, formal verification" crowd. Nonetheless, whatever you've proven : at compile time, I want to see it work. : : - Bob :