Re: Critique of Ariane 5 paper (finally!)

[jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <33F3C21D.ABD322C@eiffel.com> Bertrand Meyer <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com> writes:

> Jon S Anthony wrote:
>  
> > There is nothing new about assertions or the notion behind
> > [Design by Contract].  The basic ideas have been floated in
> > various forms for a looonnggg time now.
> 
> If this is what the discussion finally amounts to, it is hard

It is simply a statement of fact.  Do you have a problem with that?  I
was NOT making a value judgement - that seems to be your province.


>  	just as inevitable is the well-known three-step sequence
> 	of reactions that meets the introduction of a new
> 	methodological principle: (1) "it's trivial"; (2) "it
> 	cannot work"; (3) "that's how I did it all along anyway".

This, of course, is completely irrelevant.


> I guess we have reached the third step now.

One would have to go through 1 and 2 first - for which you'd have to
have a "what".  But, generally speaking, I've claimed it is more
difficult than you.  Of course, to be fair, the "what" has been
typically ill defined in this "debate" and so it is not clear what any
of 1, 2, or 3 even refer to in this context.  Typical.


> More seriously, it is absolutely correct that Design by
> Contract is based on ideas that have been around for a long

Which is ALL I said.  Where's your evidence that I said anything
else??  It would be nice if you were to start following your own
advice and stop blindly impugning the statements of others.  Or do you
feel that you are above such advice?

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
OMI, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari