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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,db5c6b2ef47d4b9e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-21 12:15:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!freenix!grolier!newsfeed.planete.net!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: short-circuit control forms Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:51:18 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9gtfn7$dl9$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3B30F836.D700DAA3@raytheon.com> <3B312260.728686B5@boeing.com> <3B3143A2.89CC2841@easystreet.com> <3B320D90.DD4BB9B2@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <3B3216D9.113A612B@easystreet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 993149479 13993 136.170.200.133 (21 Jun 2001 18:51:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Jun 2001 18:51:19 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8998 Date: 2001-06-21T18:51:19+00:00 List-Id: If you change the code, then you didn't test what you deliver. It is generally considered to be A Bad Thing in the mission critical world to run your tests, modify the code, then deliver it. If you aren't playing in this field, then the whole efficiency argument goes up in smoke anyway - so you don't want to waste time fooling with the and thens. However, I can see your point about minimizing the exposure to possible undetected errors. Still, I would prefer to fix the errors up front - or never put them in to begin with. But that starts opening up the question of what level of testing is good enough? And is it better for your reputation to have an occasional flakey error cause a system crash and have enormous difficulty reproducing the conditions for you to detect & correct it or is it better to have more frequent crashes in early deliveries and have an easier time of detecting the problems & fixing them? (Presuming, of course, that this isn't Mission Critical software we're discuissing.) I think it might depend on your individual situation. (In house customer vs general public, cost of failures, etc.) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Al Christians" wrote in message news:3B3216D9.113A612B@easystreet.com... > Wouldn't the best approach be to use 'and' most in testing, so that > as many exceptions as possible are detected in testing, but use > 'and then' most in the delivered code, so that as few exceptions > as possible are detected by the customer? >