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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,27544cb48c942326 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.14.169 with SMTP id q9mr39125029pbc.2.1319717870462; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Path: p6ni3191pbn.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Length of unbounded_string. Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:17:43 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: <4ea68441$0$8041$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl> <4ea94067$0$6625$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14207 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2011-10-27T14:17:43+02:00 List-Id: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:28:39 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 27.10.11 10:56, Simon Wright wrote: >> "Randy Brukardt" writes: >> >>> Even people who should know better do it (and I know I have, >>> too). It's a pain to create a reproducing example, but a lot of time >>> when I do that, it becomes clear what is wrong (and it often is >>> "operator error"!). >> >> Me too. > > A natural extension of this phenomenon into the workplace seems to > be writing tests. And the reasonable one is static checks. > *) test cases increase the likelihood of isolated pieces of > software that can be forward to help desks What is "the likelihood of isolated pieces"? > *) writing tests means documenting and verifying assumptions. It does not. A proper statement should sound like: the software must be developed in a way that would make it testable. This has little to do with either documentation or understanding of a *given* implementation, just a separate issue. Furthermore, I would argue that the documentation developed on the basis of tests, or even of use cases, would be rather poor. > It has taken a bit of patience and getting used to, but writing > tests early seems well worth it. With or without "formal methods". One should complement another. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de