Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!@RUTGERS.ARPA:BRYAN@SU-SIERRA.ARPA From: @RUTGERS.ARPA:BRYAN@SU-SIERRA.ARPA Newsgroups: net.works Subject: "look for bugs" Message-ID: <524@topaz.ARPA> Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 15:21:12 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.524 Posted: Tue Feb 5 15:21:12 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Feb-85 06:06:09 EST Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 34 From: Doug Bryan I agree with Charlie Levy's statement that most of the programmers time is spent in his step 3a looking for bugs. This situation should alarm us as computer scientists. Our current "programming environments", which today are barely more than good operating systems, are not doing the job. Programming tools which automate design and bug detection are greatly needed. Such things as graphical design and simulation tools have been in use in the hardware world for quite some time and need to be added to the software enviroments. Although verification will not be "state-of-the-practice" for some time, program annotation is a very powerfull bug detection tool which is nearly ready for industrial use. A great deal of the debugging done on a software system is done late in the life cycle or after its first use. This debugging time could be reduced of the programming environments contained tools specifically for this phase of the life cycle. Configuration management and automated testing tools for instance. I am not saying that I have any great new ideas here. I am just saying that if we recogmize debugging as the most costly phase of software development then software costs can be reduced by placing more research and development emphasis on the environment rather than the language itself or the standard tools like compilers, linkers, loaders, editors. . . . doug bryan Stanford University -------