Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!cam-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!uucp2.uu.net!allegra!akalice!ark
From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
Message-ID: <E5035J.E5G@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Research, Murray Hill NJ
References: <32edc09c.3000098@nntp.interaccess.com> <5cio7f$brk$1@news.nyu.edu> <dewar.854542387@merv>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:10:31 GMT
Lines: 25
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:60797 comp.lang.c++:245392 comp.lang.ada:57135 comp.lang.smalltalk:50867 comp.lang.eiffel:18174

In article <dewar.854542387@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Nicely and clearly put! Really the problem is premature reliance on
> testing. A lot of programmers never even seem to read their code, except
> in the context of testing and debugging.

This reminds me of the following nice remark I once heard in a talk
by Jerry Schwarz:

	Much of the time, when a program doesn't do what its
	author expected, the author proceeds as follows:

		1. Locate a part of the program that looks like
		   it might be relevant to the problem.

		2. Change that part of the program somehow.

		3. If that fixes the problem, you're done;
		   Otherwise go back to step 1.

	This is known as ``rapid prototyping.''
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@research.att.com
				  http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
