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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,3488d9e5d292649f
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-26 03:47:11 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Quality (Re: status of PL/I as a viable language)
Date: 26 Feb 2003 05:47:07 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <YlYv8xcN9+Bi@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <f2rb5v8020kkvq6tsf0uqg91pfbk9errs7@4ax.com>
 <E65DA1BAEE8B3C52.29B16126289D882E.5EB549036373C4E5@lp.airnews.net>
 <1045856952.418085@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <T1w5a.53$8f7.22@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
 <CACF786833CAF67E.50C10DC07731FD2D.0DEBE34F2ECDF3F2@lp.airnews.net>
 <mCH6a.102$8M5.44@read3.inet.fi> <b3fq1l$imc$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
 <c2Z6a.27$bW6.8@read3.inet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1046259978 4007 192.135.80.34 (26 Feb 2003
 11:46:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:46:18 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4460 comp.lang.ada:34602
Date: 2003-02-26T05:47:07-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <c2Z6a.27$bW6.8@read3.inet.fi>, "Anders Wirzenius" <anders.wirzenius@pp.qnet.fi> writes:

> My posting was an attempt to describe the words "build in quality".

That involves (at least) a lot of design issues.

> When you are building something you have always something _half done_. To build in quality means to me that you convince yourself
> that this _half done_ is on the right track. The key question is: how do you do the convincing?

Formal inspections and unit testing.