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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Documentation In a spec File Usually Enough For You ?
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:13:31 +0200
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net;
 news.eternal-september.org
Message-ID: <pql7gr$mgm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <7fcdcc97-67e4-473b-abc4-cd0ecd4501ad@googlegroups.com>
 <pq2gge$a3s$1@dont-email.me>
 <8f6c0bfa-f7ed-4bee-a766-c786269f13a1@googlegroups.com>
 <pq55ad$l96$1@dont-email.me>
 <eec140a3-cab7-43d2-a6a1-dc7ebce86a5b@googlegroups.com>
 <pqafta$utu$1@dont-email.me>
 <80e23f09-06ac-4112-9b7f-e765266a952d@googlegroups.com>
 <pqap5k$t6a$1@dont-email.me>
 <401524c8-ca2e-4192-b451-96abfc98a066@googlegroups.com>
 <pqii57$to0$1@dont-email.me>
 <7ec9ee6a-c944-4688-ae64-f713b38a8366@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:13:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="c5591de6caef0bf25759c2c594bccc5a";
	logging-data="23062"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zvn/EiPA27ChD803Cl59rQvOLr5AtYSA="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:A981ITzfJqgNlLyFSd4XrWNoOeI=
In-Reply-To: <7ec9ee6a-c944-4688-ae64-f713b38a8366@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54693
Date: 2018-10-22T21:13:31+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 10/22/18 6:04 PM, AdaMagica wrote:
> 
> There is a library written by me called XYZ, but I do not claim anything about reliability etc. And there are many others out there also doing XYZ. Which one would you chose? I guess the one with the optimal documentation, but definitely not mine; and you will test it, wouldn't you?

I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about your statement that you don't trust 
any S/W, and the logical consequences of that towards claims made by authors 
about their S/W. If an author makes a claim, you won't trust it until you've 
tested it, because you don't trust S/W. If an author makes no claim, that 
shouldn't change anything, because you have the same trust in that S/W that you 
have in S/W with a claim: none until you've tested it. Yet you seem to say that 
between a library that makes a claim of goodness and another with no claim, 
you'd choose the one with the claim, despite having equal lack of trust in both.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"It's all right, Taggart. Just a man and a horse being hung out there."
Blazing Saddles
34