Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!shebs
From: shebs@utah-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Object-Oriented vs. Abstract Data Types
Message-ID: <4210@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Jan-87 11:15:23 EST
Article-I.D.: utah-cs.4210
Posted: Mon Jan 26 11:15:23 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Jan-87 03:18:40 EST
References: <1023@cuuxb.UUCP> <4000003@nucsrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs)
Organization: PASS Research Group
Lines: 19

In article <4000003@nucsrl.UUCP> gore@nucsrl.UUCP (Jacob Gore) writes:

>In order for an error to be noticed at run time, the program thread
>containing the error has to be executed.  This may not happen until
>the program had been out in the field for many months (or years...).
>The only way to test for such errors it to have a test suite that
>executes every single branch in the software.

This has to be done anyway for reliable software - it's too bad that
only a handful of publicly-available programs come with test suites,
many folks don't realize that test programs are an important component
of systems in the real world.  Having compile-time type checking only
finds the second-least-interesting class of mistakes (syntax errors being
the least interesting).  It does not do anything for semantic errors,
such as those that flip F-16s upside down when crossing the equator...

>Jacob Gore

							stan shebs