Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!marick From: marick@cs.uiuc.edu (Brian Marick) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: separate SW testing newsgroup Message-ID: Date: 21 Dec 90 14:11:18 GMT References: <5512@taylord> <1990Dec12.213754.27370@ashtate> <5789@catfish10.UUCP> <916@pdxgate.UUCP> <278@smds.UUCP> <9731@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 22 bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: >Focusing on the current thinking on quality software, which is to >build the quality in up front - in the thinking stage - not in the testing >"automatable" stage, then my corollary to Richard's law is: > "Any procedure that can be completely automated does not > have any significant influence on software quality." This is demonstrably false. Consider compilers. Consider assemblers. I'm all for following Deming ("There is too much talk of the need for new machinery and automation - most people have not learned to use what they have"), but let's not go overboard. There are quality-improving procedures that are impractical when performed manually. This is especially true for quality measurement and evaluation procedures, which are essential: without them, you won't know what to think about next time you're in the "thinking stage". Brian Marick Motorola @ University of Illinois marick@cs.uiuc.edu, uiucdcs!marick