Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [XP] Test Objectives (was: Re: Unit Test Challenge II)

Expand Messages
  • Dan Rawsthorne
    Laurent Bossavit [mailto:laurent@bossavit.com] ... No. But they did intentionally take the risk of the overflow. Like I said, what was wrong with their process
    Message 1 of 263 , Apr 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Laurent Bossavit [mailto:laurent@...]
      >
      > > The Ariane crash caused by an overflow error that was
      >> /intentionally/ left uncaught.
      >
      > Surely they didn't intend for the rocket to crash ?

      No. But they did intentionally take the risk of the overflow. Like I said,
      what was wrong with their process is that they didn't have the people who
      understood the risk make that decision (violation of OBTK principle...).
      Maybe no one understood the risk, which also points out a flaw in their
      process. But it was not a flaw in the code. The code met it's requirements
      and did exactly what the Customer (in the XP sense) wanted it to do...
      >
      > > Their process worked perfectly, the code did exactly what it was
      > > supposed to.
      >
      > What, crash the rocket !?

      Yes. They took the risk. they gambled. they lost.

      DrDan ;-)
      Dan Rawsthorne
      DrDan@...

      >
      > -[Morendil]-
      > Oh, Grep ! You haven't been pattern-matching _again_ ?
    • Ilja Preuß
      ... I don t write many asserts or comments, but *I* would most often prefer asserts before comments because - I always first look at the code if I want to know
      Message 263 of 263 , Apr 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        > Why don't you replace the asserts with comments?

        I don't write many asserts or comments, but *I* would most often prefer
        asserts before comments because

        - I always first look at the code if I want to know what it does. If a
        precondition is significant enough to be written down, it is probably
        significant enough to be spotted early.

        - I most often find it easier to articulate something about code *in*
        code than in natural language.

        - I think if I *don't* find it easy to articulate a significant concept
        about the code in code, that tells me something about the design.

        - Even if I find it easy to articulate an assertion, writing it down
        might nevertheless tell me something about the design I didn't smell
        before.

        - I almost always find it easier to understand code than to understand
        natural language.

        - I am more likely to forget adjusting a comment to changing code than
        adjusting an assert.

        - I think it is easier to refactor an assertion than to refactor a
        comment

        - I simply hate writing comments, whereas I love writing code! ;-)

        There are probably more reasons...

        Regards, Ilja
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.