Re: Software Quality in Science

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

Jerry <lanceboyle@qwest.net> writes:

> Here is the link in the Guardian article to the original work:
>
> http://www.leshatton.org/Documents/Texp_ICSE297.pdf

Thanks for the link.

> And this comment which addresses the use of Ada:

Hmm.  Looks like it fails to address Ada (or C++)
due to "lack of space".  I skept.

> "In C, note that function prototypes were well used only around 60% of
> the time and as a result, interface faults accounted for about 24% of
> the total. In other words, if function prototypes were mandated in all
> C functions, 24% of all serious faults would disappear.

Surely that's no longer a problem in modern C!?

>...The
> computational scientist should not use this as an argument in favour
> of C++ or Ada in which they are mandated. A large number of new
> failure modes result from this action, which lack of space prohibits
> further discussion here.

Hmm...

>...The net result of changing languages appears
> to be that the overall defect density appears to be about the same,
> (Hatton 1997). In other words, when a language corrects one
> deficiency, it appears to add one of its own."

That assertion requires evidence, and I don't see it here!

- Bob