Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!uunet!visix!ip2020!adamksh From: adam@visix.com Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: bridge building (was Re: Documenting OO Systems) Message-ID: <1991May2.152234.17169@visix.com> Date: 2 May 91 15:22:34 GMT References: <1259@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> <9105012313.AA23259@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <33846@mimsy.umd.edu> <9105020234.AA01202@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> Sender: news@visix.com Reply-To: adam@visix.com Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA Lines: 13 In article <9105020234.AA01202@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>, koehnema@ENUXHA.EAS.ASU.EDU (Harry Koehnemann) writes: |> The point is that the error was not caused by |> a single programming mistake. It was designed, reviewed, and tested |> extensively (I hope). Therefore, we must blame th process as being |> inadequate to catch that type of error. I'm sorry, but you can't blame an entire process based on a single data point. You may well argue that C is statistically more likely to have errors, but that is a different argument, for which anecdotes are irrelevant. Adam