Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!news.thenet.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!uucp3.uu.net!world!bobduff
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
Message-ID: <E4ov7M.6q9@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <JSA.97Jan16141937@alexandria> <dewar.854327202@merv> <01bc0c4d$8a0108f0$c318b993@jarvisb> <dewar.854377413@merv>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:45:22 GMT
Lines: 18
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:60403 comp.lang.c++:243517 comp.lang.ada:56613 comp.lang.smalltalk:50138 comp.lang.eiffel:17796

In article <dewar.854377413@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>On the other hand, it is quite possible to generate high reliability code
>with no testing whatsoever.

I skept.

> ...For more information on this possibility (which
>often seems almost incredible to the test-debug crowd), read up on the
>cleanroom approach to generating software, an approach in which the development
>team is not permitted to do any testing!

It's incredible to me, and I don't count myself among the "test-debug
crowd".  I count myself among the "static type checking, and even
better, formal verification" crowd.  Nonetheless, whatever you've proven
at compile time, I want to see it work.

- Bob

