From: JP Thornley <jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: best ADA 95 bible ? (fwd)
Date: 2000/02/24
Date: 2000-02-24T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <KQzXKBA+wZt4Iw5i@diphi.demon.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 38b32dc9@eeyore.callnetuk.com
In article <38b32dc9@eeyore.callnetuk.com>, Nick Roberts
<nickroberts@callnetuk.com> writes
>As for testing, my motto, after many, many years of programming experience
>(I hate saying that ;-), could easily be "test, test, and test again".
Which would be a more convincing argument if the error in the Rational
package had been found by testing, rather than by simply reading the
code.
Isn't it true that every study into the effectiveness of different
verification techniques shows that code reviews are the most effective?
Cheers,
Phil Thornley
--
JP Thornley
prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-02-24 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-02-22 0:00 best ADA 95 bible ? (fwd) Barbara W. Barnes
2000-02-22 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
2000-02-24 0:00 ` JP Thornley [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox