Re: Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On 15 Feb 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> > Why must you be so argumentative ?
> > I know how to spell the words "I have proof", and would have done so
> > if that were the case.
> 
> You're probably right. I was just defending the honor of
> "my favorite language" :-)

I'm surprised that you even have a favorite. ;-)

> It would be interesting to see a defect analysis similar to that
> Lucent study (which was for old pre-ANSI C code) done for a large Ada
> project, to see what kinds of bugs show up there. 

That would indeed be interesting. It would also be interesting to find out 
roughly what fraction of the installed base of C code is "new ISO C" rather 
than bad old K&R. My experience is that a lot of brand new C code out there 
is still pre-ANSI, meaning roughly "prototype free". Similarly, I'd like
to find out what fraction of C++ code is truly ISO C++ compliant. When I
was using C++ a lot (mid 90's) it seemed that no two compilers would
handle the same subset of templates. It would have helped C++ to have an
Ada like test suite so that there would be some minimal level of agreement.

-- Brian