Re: Quality (Re: status of PL/I as a viable language)

["Anders Wirzenius" <anders.wirzenius@pp.qnet.fi>]

"AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:6V98a.113960$F63.2447189@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Anders Wirzenius" <anders.wirzenius@pp.qnet.fi> wrote in message
> > Sorry, failed the test:
> >
> > Should have written: So how do YOU build in quality in "jumping off the
> tall building"?
> >
> Well, if I had to try that for some reason I would make darn sure that the
> ropes are
> strong and there are multiple ropes just in case one of them fails and there
> is a safety net
> somewhere along the way to the ground. You may say that testing the ropes is
> a test - yes
> it is but it's totally separate from testing the whole thing. The same ropes
> could be used

No, it is not totally separate, it is a (small) part of the "building in quality into the whole thing" . My point has in this thread
been to explain what "make darn sure" or "build in quality" or "catch the problem at an early state" in practice means. Please see
my earlier posts.

The creator of the Cooper's running test (12 min running) told in his book about people that asked him for concrete advises (How
often?, How much? How do I know that I am in good shape?) when he told them to exercise more. Since he wanted to give them an answer
to those excellent questions he developed a point system and also the famous 12 min test itself. My posting was a similar attempt to
open up "build in quality".

> to rig a sailing boat say. That's what built-in quality means - by the time
> you try to test it
> it's way too late.
>
>

I don't know what "That's" is pointing at. So the last sentence did not open to me.

Thank you, AG et.al., but ...
this conversation has now gone that far from Ada, that I put an end to it from my side and thank for the discussion. If somebody
wants to continue, please use my personal email address.

By for now
Anders