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: 103376,a83c46b54bacb7f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Hyman Rosen Subject: Re: JOB:Sr. SW Engineers Wanted-Fortune 500 Co Date: 2000/02/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 580424319 Sender: hymie@calumny.jyacc.com References: <3894A823.92EC75D1@bondtechnologies.com> <874b7r$mj9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <877081$knt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 949427513 11318 209.49.126.226 (1 Feb 2000 17:51:53 GMT) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Feb 2000 17:51:53 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-01T17:51:53+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison writes: > No. But testing does not guarantee the total absence of bugs either > (another Arianne lesson). Thus it is not sufficient in my view to make > up for poor development tools with testing. By that logic it would be > perfectly OK for me to hand-machine aircraft parts with a hammer and > chisel, as long as they were all thoroughly tested. I said *development* and testing. This also means careful code inspections. When you develop pacemaker software in Ada, you still must scrutinize the code to insure that runtime exceptions will never happen. Runtime exceptions will help you detect errors during testing, but such exceptions must never be allowed to happen in production. The same scrutiny will be applied to C code. And you certainly can hand-machine the aircraft parts, if you can still do that to spec. What's wrong with doing that? If you mean to imply that hand- machining is somehow equivalent to coding in C, I must confess that I don't understand the analogy.