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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
Date: 1997/01/29
Message-ID: <dewar.854542387@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 213010075
references: <32E999AE.2F68@parcplace.com> <dewar.854327202@merv>
 <32edc09c.3000098@nntp.interaccess.com> <5cio7f$brk$1@news.nyu.edu>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: 
 comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-01-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Richard Kenner said

"I've heard nobody claim that *testing* is a bad idea.  The claim, with
which I agree, is that *reliance* on testing is a bad idea.  There's a
very large difference between those claims."

Nicely and clearly put! Really the problem is premature reliance on
testing. A lot of programmers never even seem to read their code, except
in the context of testing and debugging. This means of course that they
read only the code that testing digs up problems with, and the code and
logic paths that do not get fully tested (testing can almost never be
100% complete in real life programs, since the range of inputs is too
large), are never read by anyone.