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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!12.120.4.37!attcg2!ip.att.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)
Date: 22 Mar 2005 02:08:25 -0600
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Message-ID: <ShLx8p0PFlRq@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org> <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org>
 <y8lWd.103136$Vf.3969714@news000.worldonline.dk>
 <87is4598pm.fsf@insalien.org> <1110054476.533590@athnrd02>
 <u7jkliykd.fsf@obry.org> <1110059861.560004@athnrd02>
 <422b6d49.1141887367@news.xs4all.nl>
 <EuaXd.12424$Pz7.8656@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
 <1110266099.441421.179290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
 <d0kvpd$783$1@sparta.btinternet.com>
 <1110332933.587110.260410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
 <d0m6tk$gt8$1@titan.btinternet.com> <1110Organization: LJK Software
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1111478875 2332 192.135.80.34 (22 Mar 2005
 08:07:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:07:55 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9714 comp.lang.c++:46657
 comp.realtime:1581 comp.software-eng:5182
Date: 2005-03-22T02:08:25-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <d1ngq0$r7e$1@avnika.corp.mot.com>, Paul Dietz <paul.f.dietz@motorola.com> writes:
> adaworks@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> 
>> Still, when we hold one development environment (an Ada compiler)
>> to a higher standard, we need to understand that difference when
>> making comparions.  It costs a great deal more money to produce
>> a compiler that must pass validation (now conformity) than to
>> create one in which the defects are intended to be discovered
>> by the users and fixed in some future release.
> 
> If one has a copy of the validation test suite, why is it necessary
> to wait for the users to find the bugs?  Is it that you have to pay
> for the cost of fixing the bugs that the users would never encounter?

One of the costs of fixing defects not reported by a user is the non-zero
probability that making a change will introduce additional defects.

Clearly that is unacceptable if the chance of some user discovering
the original defect can be proven to be zero.

It is required (someday) if the chance of some user discovering
the original defect can be proven to be one.

Unfortunately, most such probabilities lie somewhere in the vast middle.