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: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,3488d9e5d292649f X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-25 22:22:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!nsc.no!nextra.com!uio.no!newsfeed.song.fi!nntp.inet.fi!central.inet.fi!inet.fi!read3.inet.fi.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Anders Wirzenius" Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada References: <1045856952.418085@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Subject: Re: Quality (Re: status of PL/I as a viable language) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:22:00 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.251.142.2 X-Complaints-To: abuse@inet.fi X-Trace: read3.inet.fi 1046240520 194.251.142.2 (Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:22:00 EET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:22:00 EET Organization: Sonera corp Internet services Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4459 comp.lang.ada:34595 Date: 2003-02-26T06:22:00+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:b3fq1l$imc$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net... > You can never escape the necessity of testing. Whatever you build will > ultimately be tested so long as it is actually used. Either you test it or > your customer tests it. But that said, testing can't build in quality. It > can only demonstrate quality - or the lack thereof. Ideally, you would build > a product, test it and find zero errors or defects. That would reflect > building the quality in. Going through a cycle of testing it, fixing it, > testing it again, fixing it again,,,,, is an attempt to test the quality > into a product. Using that approach, you might eventually get to zero > defects, but it takes longer and costs more than if the test immediately > revealed zero defects. Product here means finished product, right? My posting was an attempt to describe the words "build in quality". 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? Anders