RE: [colorforth] abort

[Samuel Falvo <falvosa@xxxxxxxxx>]

> It was Dijkstra that said "Program testing can be used to show the
> presence of bugs, but never to show their absence!"

This is true to the extent that if the specifications are inadequately
specified, then bugs can creep in without detection.  However, if a program
fully meets a client's requirements, and those requirements are expressed as
tests, then by definition, it is free of bugs.

> epdidemic. My guess is that where XP succeeds in relation to other
> methodologies is that it is closer to no methodology at all. I can't
> imagine applying any fixed methods to a creative process such as
> programming.

XP and the general Forth philosophy share a LOT together.  The major
differences between the two is that XP emphasizes the following:

1.  Rapid turn-around times.  Releasing functional, always progressing/never
regressing software on a weekly, or even faster, basis.

2.  Write tests *first*, since these *are* the customer's requirements.  Write
production code afterwards.  Run these tests constantly.

The other major difference between XP and the Forth Way is that the former is
very widely known and publicized, with tons and tons of books on the subject.

Having participated in a number of development projects in the past, which
employed several or all of XP's core concepts, I can say without fear that XP
works, and the result is, truely, bug-free software.

--
Samuel A. Falvo II


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com