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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:d80f:: with SMTP id
 l15-v6mr14783182iok.30.1540288858318;
        Tue, 23 Oct 2018 03:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4497:: with SMTP id v23mr875166ote.6.1540288858168;
 Tue, 23 Oct 2018 03:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!75-v6no42473itm.0!news-out.google.com!n199-v6ni69itn.0!nntp.google.com!z5-v6no42302ite.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 03:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <pql7gr$mgm$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=2003:c7:83d2:56f4:3c0a:2a0d:860d:72b3;
 posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2003:c7:83d2:56f4:3c0a:2a0d:860d:72b3
References: <7fcdcc97-67e4-473b-abc4-cd0ecd4501ad@googlegroups.com>
 <pq2gge$a3s$1@dont-email.me>
 <8f6c0bfa-f7ed-4bee-a766-c786269f13a1@googlegroups.com>
 <pq55ad$l96$1@dont-email.me>
 <eec140a3-cab7-43d2-a6a1-dc7ebce86a5b@googlegroups.com>
 <pqafta$utu$1@dont-email.me>
 <80e23f09-06ac-4112-9b7f-e765266a952d@googlegroups.com>
 <pqap5k$t6a$1@dont-email.me>
 <401524c8-ca2e-4192-b451-96abfc98a066@googlegroups.com>
 <pqii57$to0$1@dont-email.me>
 <7ec9ee6a-c944-4688-ae64-f713b38a8366@googlegroups.com>
 <pql7gr$mgm$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <70ad2216-f27b-4ca6-90c1-d2033b4ea216@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the Documentation In a spec File Usually Enough For You ?
From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:00:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54694
Date: 2018-10-23T03:00:57-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Am Montag, 22. Oktober 2018 21:13:33 UTC+2 schrieb Jeffrey R. Carter:
> On 10/22/18 6:04 PM, AdaMagica wrote:
> >=20
> > There is a library written by me called XYZ, but I do not claim anythin=
g 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?
>=20
> I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about your statement that you don't=
 trust=20
> any S/W, and the logical consequences of that towards claims made by auth=
ors=20
> about their S/W. If an author makes a claim, you won't trust it until you=
've=20
> tested it, because you don't trust S/W. If an author makes no claim, that=
=20
> shouldn't change anything, because you have the same trust in that S/W th=
at you=20
> have in S/W with a claim: none until you've tested it. Yet you seem to sa=
y that=20
> between a library that makes a claim of goodness and another with no clai=
m,=20
> you'd choose the one with the claim, despite having equal lack of trust i=
n 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. A=
nd 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.