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,d901a50a5adfec3c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,9f0bf354542633fd
X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public
From: dewarr@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Fortran or Ada?
Date: 1998/10/05
Message-ID: <6vbhhc$5kj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 398049989
References: <3617AA49.340A5899@icon.fi> <6v9s4t$egn$1@ys.ifremer.fr>
 <3618dc33.0@news.passport.ca>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x12.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Oct 05 22:34:20 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/2.02 (OS/2; I)
Date: 1998-10-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3618dc33.0@news.passport.ca>,
  "Ian St. John" <istjohn@high-sense.com> wrote:


> IMHO, well tested software doesn't fail. Hardware does. At least, in the
> sense of random errors. Software can have systematic errors, or design
> limitations. Random errors and unexpected data indicate hardware problems.

Well you can of course make your "HO" valid by simply defining any testing
that results in software with bugs as not meeting your criteria for testing
"well". But in practice it would surprise me if anyone these days would
propose that testing alone is sufficient for guaranteeing freedom from
failure in software. This is hardly controversial, indeed what would be
controversial at this stage is precisely this view (that testing *could*
be sufficient).

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own