Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!cbnewsk!dwwx From: dwwx@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (david.w.wood) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Code Inspections Message-ID: Date: 6 Feb 91 04:17:34 GMT References: <15469.9102041851@olympus.cs.hull.ac.uk> Sender: dwwx@cbnewsk.att.com (david.w.wood) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 44 In-Reply-To: rst@cs.hull.ac.uk's message of 4 Feb 91 18:51:02 GMT In article <15469.9102041851@olympus.cs.hull.ac.uk> rst@cs.hull.ac.uk (Rob Turner) writes: I believe that with software as it is currently written, code -------------------------- inspections are by far the best way of removing bugs. A few competent programmers around a table discussing a piece of code will quickly iron out any faults. However, code inspections should not really be necessary. If you have *designed* your system properly, and have a collection of relatively small modules with well defined interfaces, then coding these modules should be a particularly straightforward task with little (though admittedly some) scope for error. My point is that inspections should be performed at the *design* stage, before any coding has been carried out (even before the implementation language has been chosen). Of course, the end product of the design should be concrete enough for any programmer to be able to produce the requisite code from with little thought. Design solutions which are at too high a level and leave a great deal to the imagination of the programmer are no good (even though the programmer may feel he/she has more room to express his/her talents). HERE! HERE! Inspections have to be performed starting with requirements and go all the way through the process. Only doing code inspections allows you to miss the expensive errors. Fagin code inspections have the code inspected against/with respect to the design. How do you know the design is correct? The design needs to be inspected. It has to be inspected against a higher level design, [iterate up to requirements]. Test plans are generated from requirements, architectures and designs, they need to be inspected. I see dozens of published articles (and dozens of postings :-) mentioning CODE inspections, BUT NOBODY (except Rob) mentions requirements, designs, test plans, documentation, etc. Is it so obvious that nobody thinks it needs to be stated? What gives? David Wood AT&T Bell Labs