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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e2e5d82f29423074
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: JP Thornley <jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: best ADA 95 bible ? (fwd)
Date: 2000/02/24
Message-ID: <KQzXKBA+wZt4Iw5i@diphi.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 589474468
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: diphi.demon.co.uk:158.152.212.133
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000222083101.28681N-100000@suma3.reading.ac.uk>
 <38b32dc9@eeyore.callnetuk.com>
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 951426783 nnrp-11:1266 NO-IDENT
 diphi.demon.co.uk:158.152.212.133
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
Date: 2000-02-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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