SCOUG-Programming Mailing List Archives

<< Previous Message << >> Next Message >>

Date:	Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:39:53 PST8
From:	"Lynn H. Maxson" <lmaxson@pacbell.net >
Reply-To:	scoug-programming@scoug.com
To:	"SCOUG Programming SIG" <scoug-programming@scoug.com > , "osFree@yahoogroups.com" <osFree@yahoogroups.com >
Subject:	SCOUG-Programming: QA equals testing, Part One:Detection

Content Type: text/plain

Dale Erwin writes:
"Lynn, I find one thing missing from your missals. I have yet to
see anything addressing errors in the code (written by a
human) that constitutes this tool (SL/I)."

We have two tools here, the language SL/I and its
implementation within the DA. Neither can detect logic errors
either of omission or commission. I would like them to do so,
but some genius proved that it was impossible for any
software (or hardware) to do. They can, however, in their
visual output, logical organization, and exhaustive true/false
proof tell you the results of that logic. It's up to you to
validate these results in terms of what you expect. At best
then they provide a multiplicity of aids. Your option, should
you choose to exercise it, lies in validating without the use of
aids: like performing a peer review of your own, i.e. reading,
on the code you have written.

In effect every implementation offers a form of peer review.
This allows you to verify that you wrote what you thought
you wrote. If after exhaustive testing it produces only the
expected results either true or false, then you wrote it
correctly. Otherwise not. You have the additional
requirement to know what to expect. You ought to know
what you want. The implementation can only tell you what
you get. If they don't match, you have a problem.

Do not focus on SL/I. I created it only to overcome the
deficiencies I feel in Prolog, the dominant logic programming
language. If it didn't have them or could easily overcome
them, I would not have come up with SL/I. Unfortunately I'm
an old man with nearly 40 years experience with PL/I. The
gap between it and any other programming language is huge.
No one, not even Wirth in his evolutionary approach of
programming languages comes close. To get to a universal
specification language based on PL/I means traveling a far
shorter distance in time with fewer changes than any other. I
could have called it PL/II, but chose instead SL/I.

You need not focus on SL/I or PL/I. You need to focus on
logic programming and its embedded use of a two-stage proof
engine. Then pick any language of your choice and upgrade it
accordingly. The object lies in increasing your productivity so
that you have more time to detect and correct errors prior to
releasing them on an unsuspecting world...which unfortunately
has come to expect it.

=====================================================

To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-programming".

For problems, contact the list owner at
"rollin@scoug.com".

=====================================================

Return to [ 03 | January | 2004 ]

SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group. OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation. All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.