Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpopd!daves
From: daves@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Dave Straker)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Provocative statement
Message-ID: <36650007@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>
Date: 27 Apr 91 10:37:56 GMT
References: <9776@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard CCG-PWD, UK.
Lines: 30

>> formal methods community. They use over-kill in the main. Materials and
>> designs proven to work from experience and then some!! Very few bridges
>> fall down. The number that do is a tolerable expediency.
>
>The interesting point is not so much the difference between Europe and
>the US, but rather the 'over-kill' approach.  Do people think this is
>one way in which 'software engineering' will progress in the future?

'Overkill' is really about risk management. If you want high quality,
you must spend time and effort 'making certain'.

A simple example: You write a program. It compiles and links ok. It
could be considered overkill to test it. After all, you were careful
with the design and coding. But you do it, to minimise the risk of
defects remaining in the released product. And the more you test,
the more defects you find, but at a reducing rate. This is where you
decide your acceptable level of risk. For a simple program to count
words in a text file, you may well accept a high level of risk. For a 
space shuttle control program, you would put in a lot more 'overkill'
testing.

Perhaps the original author's point is that the Europeans are more
risk-averse than Americans. This seems to be true in the case of
financial investment - many good British inventions have gone to
the US for want of development capital. But there again, look at
the state of the US economy!

Dave Straker            Pinewood Information Systems Division (PWD not PISD)
[8-{)                   HPDESK: David Straker/HP1600/01
                        Unix:   daves@hpopd.pwd.hp.com