Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:26580 comp.software-eng:3066
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Currency Quotes
Message-ID: <15229@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 5 Mar 90 15:00:50 GMT
References: <803@xyzzy.UUCP> <8229@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Lines: 21

In article <8229@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>   No, it was an example of the C community's cavalier attitude
>   toward software reliability.  The comment "Don't base your
>   financial plans on the output", or words to that effect, were
>   a) inappropriate, since the static nature of the rates is part
>   of the specification and should not be listed in the defects
>   section, and b) irresponsible, since it indicates a flippant
>   approach to the reliability of the output.

This is pretty silly.

Do Ada fans ever strike you-all as just a teeny bit defensive? :-)

If the original poster wants a serious discussion, then some heavy duty
definition of terms (starting with what's a "C community") is in order.
But something tells me that's not quite what's going on here... maybe we
should all just smile and say, "Very good Bill!" and move on to the
next thing.
-- 
"Nature loves a vacuum.  Digital    \O@/    Tom Neff
  doesn't." -- DEC sales letter     /@O\    tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET