Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!cci632!rit!prague!mjl
From: mjl@praguecs.rit.edu (Lutz Mike J;;;777777)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Specification Tools and Code Testing
Message-ID: <1838@cs.rit.edu>
Date: 27 Aug 90 13:54:38 GMT
References: <1990Aug13.140347.9441@nixtdc.uucp> <19578@well.sf.ca.us> <8316@fy.sei.cmu.edu> <20013@well.sf.ca.us> <8353@fy.sei.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@cs.rit.edu
Reply-To: mjl@praguecs.rit.edu (Lutz Mike J;;;777777)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Lines: 16

In article <8353@fy.sei.cmu.edu>, bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
|>"blind to their own mistakes", applies to everyone, even testers who should
|>use a methodical method since "intuitive testing" doesn't work well.  My 
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Has the word ``method'' become so meaningless that we have to prepend the
adjectival form simply to provide semantic weight?  Or is useless redundancy
going to become the rule?  A bit off the thread, perhaps, but then again maybe
not.  After all, specification is about clarity if it's about anything
at all.

---------
Mike Lutz
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY 14623-0887
mjl@cs.rit.edu