Re: Is the Documentation In a spec File Usually Enough For You ?

[AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>]

Am Montag, 22. Oktober 2018 21:13:33 UTC+2 schrieb Jeffrey R. Carter:
> On 10/22/18 6:04 PM, AdaMagica wrote:
> > 
> > There is a library written by me called XYZ, but I do not claim anything about reliability etc. And there are many others out there also doing XYZ. Which one would you chose? I guess the one with the optimal documentation, but definitely not mine; and you will test it, wouldn't you?
> 
> I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about your statement that you don't trust 
> any S/W, and the logical consequences of that towards claims made by authors 
> about their S/W. If an author makes a claim, you won't trust it until you've 
> tested it, because you don't trust S/W. If an author makes no claim, that 
> shouldn't change anything, because you have the same trust in that S/W that you 
> have in S/W with a claim: none until you've tested it. Yet you seem to say that 
> between a library that makes a claim of goodness and another with no claim, 
> you'd choose the one with the claim, despite having equal lack of trust in both.

We all are fond of Ada and trust the compilers and like the portability of Ada's code. Why? Because there is the ACATS (the former ACVC) test suite. And according to Randy, many compilers have great difficulties to fulfil the last x% of the ACATS.

So tests of SW are a kind of sine qua non.