Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!apple!lsr
From: lsr@apple.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Object-Oriented vs. Abstract Data Types
Message-ID: <411@apple.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Jan-87 13:02:59 EST
Article-I.D.: apple.411
Posted: Tue Jan 27 13:02:59 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Jan-87 21:41:07 EST
References: <1023@cuuxb.UUCP> <4000003@nucsrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein)
Organization: Advanced Technology Group, Apple Computer
Lines: 27

In article <4000003@nucsrl.UUCP> gore@nucsrl.UUCP (Jacob Gore) writes:
>This is the part that troubles me most about run-time error checking.
>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.
>

The same is true of pointers.  How can you be sure that a bad pointer is not
passed to a procedure?  You have to do sufficient testing.

There have been cases of bugs going undiscovered in large programs written
with conventional techniques, so the problem is not unique to
object-oriented programming.  



-- 
Larry Rosenstein

Object Specialist
Apple Computer

AppleLink: Rosenstein1
UUCP:  {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr
CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET