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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: paul.johnson@gecm.com (Paul Johnson) Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/08/15 Message-ID: <5t1fen$c7d$1@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 264303291 References: <33E09CD5.634F@flash.net> <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> <5siqrr$3of@jupiter.milkyway.org> <5smgts$p68$1@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <33EFCCE4.4CE0@flash.net> <5sskfd$nn5$2@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <33F25AA5.49ED@flash.net> Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <33F25AA5.49ED@flash.net>, kennieg@flash.net says... > >Paul Johnson wrote: >> The whole point is to document the interface, and then check >> the documentation for correctness. > >Against what? All you have is the code and the assertions created as >part >of the code. Checking them against each other determines internal >consistency between the two, but that's all. Its a pretty big "all". Such an inconsistency points to an error either in the documentation or the code. Then you can go and figure out which one is wrong. >Based on the studies I've >seen, most errors aren't to pure internal inconsistencies at the code >level. I have some difficulty parsing that. I take it you mean that most errors in software are not due to inconsistencies in the code. So what? Most development systems do not include automatic checking of the documentation. This is design-level stuff, not code level. >It's difficult to explain a software methodology to someone who only >sees one step: coding. Please don't talk down to me: you'll only miss. Try thinking of Eiffel as a software engineering notation, rather than just a programming language. Its features allow the code to capture information about the analysis, design and implementation. This information is kept in one place, in one format and hence can be checked for consistency. Paul. -- Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. | +44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+ Work: | You are lost in a twisty maze of little Home: | standards, all different.