Re: Bug rate and choice of programming language

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:53:25 +0200, Phil Thornley  
<phil.jpthornley@gmail.com> a écrit:
> http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2003/11/0311german.html

Another quote from the source

> Control flow analysis can be conducted using tools or done manually at
> various levels of abstraction (module, node, etc.) and is done for the
> following reasons:* Ensure the code is executed in the right sequence.
> * Ensure the code is well structured.
> * Locate any syntactically unreachable code.
> * Highlight the parts of the code (e.g., loops) where termination
>   needs to be considered.
> This may result in diagrammatic and graphical representations of the
> code being produced.

I feel the last sentence (previous text was quoted for context), may be a  
good reason to mitigate some (bad) evaluation of UML or UML- like  
representations. It seems their experience shows some graphical  
representation at some level may help. This does not really advocate for  
UML, rather for some kind of multi-dimensional representations, like  
graphical representations are.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.