Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:8925 comp.software-eng:4044
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uc!cs.umn.edu!ux.acs!vw.acs.umn.edu!dhoyt
From: dhoyt@vw.acs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Project experience with C++
Message-ID: <2045@ux.acs.umn.edu>
Date: 10 Aug 90 18:24:33 GMT
Sender: news@ux.acs.umn.edu
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++
Organization: University of Minnesota, Academic Computing Services
Lines: 19

In article <10329@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM>, vaughan@mcc.com (Paul Vaughan) writes...
>klimas@astro.pc.ab.com wrote:
> 
>	I saw some confidential statistics on a large software project that
>	indicated that strong typing in a rather large (~ 1 million lines of
>	code) caught only 10% of the errors.

Having worked on a several  +million line programs (mostly Fortran mixed with
about 10% C and 5% assembler).  I'd aggree with the statement.  But only
because the statement is meaningless.  A project never gets anywere near a
million lines long without lots of testing and billions (okay, lots) of
compiles and even more bugs. Putting an 'IMPLICIT NONE' at the top of all those
Fortran modules (assuming you didn't use some such method in the first place,
unlikely) would catch about 10% of the outstanding bugs.  It's in the right
order of magnitude anyway <:).

Unfortunately it would only find about 5 of the reported bugs...

david paul hoyt | dhoyt@vx.acs.umn.edu | dhoyt@umnacvx.bitnet