"ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS--EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE."
"SERIOUSLY. THE WHOLE PLACE IS COVERED IN ACID. WE LOST FIVE CRAFT BEFORE WE FOUND OUT."
"WE'RE JUST SAYING."
(ps - pretend this text isn't here. It's just lowercase stuff meant to get around the lameness filter so's I can tell this (admittedly lame) joke. Damn you,/.! Damn you to helllllll!)
I also feel testing will be around for a good long time, particularly in areas where no one even knows what the pre- and post-conditions should be. In GUI code, for example, one post-condition ought to be that the interface that appears be "user-friendly". Personally, I have no clue how to define that formally...
In any case, there's no arguing with results. While it may not ensure 100% bug-free code, testing certainly gets one a great deal of the way there, and it's indeed too bad that Ms. Livschitz didn't give it more of a nod.
A fair point. The trick is to take a much more principled approach to analyzing real-world entities and relationships. This is the field of formal ontology, a branch of philosophy.
Good ontology modelling software would check assumptions about objects such as "if you remove a man's arm, he is still considered the same man" (in business context, yes) and "a company is the same as the people who work in it" (it's not). Basic stuff; people tend to know it intuitively, but that intuition tends not to make it into software, which causes breakage.
One of the drawbacks of testing is that it only tells you whether the code works with the tests you put into the suite; meanwhile, you may have much less confidence in whether the code will always work in every situation in which it will ever be used.
In your case, you developed a very comprehensive suite, and I'd assume from your post that you know what you're doing, so your confidence level would be high anyway. (Namely, about 98%.) The problem is that you had to laboriously develop this suite and ensure that it covered (at least at first) all of the code; and then when/if more code was added, the suite would have to be expanded to cover that, and so on. Building the suite isn't easy; it takes much effort.
One of the holy grails of programming is proving program correctness - if A, B, and C are true, and program P is executed, verify that C, D, and E will always be true afterward. Straightforward enough, until the program gets over about, oh, ten lines.:-) In some cases, though, it feels as if the proof effort could be automated - I often find myself worrying over large stretches of code that is rather boilerplate, just shuffling around Java Collections or simple C structs and such - and if it could, it would mean a large reduction in the amount of test suite I'd have to develop to cover the same amount of code. All I'd need to do is come up with the pre- and post-conditions, which I would've had to do for the test suite anyway.
Later, if the code must be extended, the prover software could theoretically tell me whether the post-conditions will still hold, and if not, when they won't. Then I could either write code to handle the problem cases, or rewrite the post-conditions, and run the prover again. Comparably less effort than extending the test suite.
Correctness proofs aren't Ms. Livschitz' thrust, I admit, but I feel it's the ultimate key to bug-free code, and her promoted ideas of a more strict component architecture and stress on closer adherence between code objects and real-world objects lend themselves to making these proofs more achievable. If we had more universal and strictly defined code constructs for entities such as people, business transactions, chemical reactions, etc., we could be much more confident in the soundness of the programs we build with them.
...it also seemed like she misstated Java's approach as a "sandbag architecture" as opposed to a "sandbox architecture". I keep trying to visualize programmers writing more and more Java code to stave off the inevitable surge of bugs....
As others have said, this has already happened. More specifically, the theory that "if anyone discovers just exactly what the universe is for and why we are here, that it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable" in fact implied why we were here (namely, to discover the above theory), and so it no longer holds.
Which means the purpose of the universe and of ourselves is now ridiculously simple and inane, and furthermore, if we ever figure it out, it won't be replaced. Which is a shame.
The real quantum physicist will post a superposition of all possible comments with attached probabilities, so your browser will be able to randomly select which one to show you.
If only Slashdot could do this. Then, for each article, I could read just one comment, modded +15 Funny/Insightful/Informative, and be done with my day in 1/5 the time.
Maybe the Morocco rock is actually part of an Earth rover from Mars. Broke off when some dingbat Martian intern forgot to convert between grobfritzes and miftues.
Bertie sort of addresses this in his reply as well, but I thought I'd chime in here and say that I, too, would get a kick out of an exceedingly tiny car, provided it at least looks reasonably good (i.e. not a Yugo). Hell, I'll give up on looks if I could fold it up and carry it like a briefcase, a la The Jetsons.
A few years ago I toured some of Europe with some friends in a Smart. Nifty car. You can see it here. Good news, or bad, depending on how you look at it: they plan to debut in the US in 2006.
How about Ciaran Hinds as Thrawn? Tall, imposing figure, dark hair, played President Nemerov in The Sum of all Fears. Irish-born IIRC, but he could certainly do some accent if needed.
The difference is, you can use the Internet at work. TV, not so much. (Unless you work at a TV station, or your boss is some hippie who's never around.)
So you've replaced an hour of work with an hour of Internet, and an hour of TV with an hour of socializing.
And yes, I'm being facetious. A lot of work gets done on the net...
New home for humanity. Dude, I hate to be the first to tell you this, but humans breathe air. This means that, from a pure economic standpoint, Mars won't be settled until Antarctica is full. Since I think the planet Trantor is more fun to imagine than to actually live on, I think we'd better find a solution to the population problem that takes effect before Antarctica is full.
Your response is uninformed. It won't matter how licked our population problem is on Earth, if an asteroid hits it.
Besides, no one would advocate settling Mars solely in order to relieve population pressure on Earth anyway. You'd have to ship over 25000 people up, every single day, to keep Earth's population constant.
And Gandalf the White suddenly turning to the camera and saying, "I'm born again!"
Re:You know... things just don't amaze me.
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 1
This is why I like Robert Zemeckis so much. He does the best job I've seen of keeping CG strictly in service to story, and as a corollary, making it look as little like CG as possible. Remember Contact? Forrest Gump? When the orderly lifted Lt. Dan Taylor out of his bed, I had to force myself to remember that Gary Sinise is not an amputee.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always had the distinct impression that JayWalking is done in California, too (Burbank and environs). No idea where Street Smarts does its thing.
We may need a SCOTUS ruling on this one...
At least your digital boards are giving you "helpful" information.
The one on the road I drive on says:
REPORT SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY
1-800-555-TIPS
Okay, when's your next SEC filing?
"ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS--EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE."
/.! Damn you to helllllll!)
"SERIOUSLY. THE WHOLE PLACE IS COVERED IN ACID. WE LOST FIVE CRAFT BEFORE WE FOUND OUT."
"WE'RE JUST SAYING."
(ps - pretend this text isn't here. It's just lowercase stuff meant to get around the lameness filter so's I can tell this (admittedly lame) joke. Damn you,
I also feel testing will be around for a good long time, particularly in areas where no one even knows what the pre- and post-conditions should be. In GUI code, for example, one post-condition ought to be that the interface that appears be "user-friendly". Personally, I have no clue how to define that formally...
In any case, there's no arguing with results. While it may not ensure 100% bug-free code, testing certainly gets one a great deal of the way there, and it's indeed too bad that Ms. Livschitz didn't give it more of a nod.
Moderation Guideline: +3 Funny.
As of this writing, your comment is +5, Funny. See, this is the problem behind buggy code: people just won't follow the guidelines...
A fair point. The trick is to take a much more principled approach to analyzing real-world entities and relationships. This is the field of formal ontology, a branch of philosophy.
Good ontology modelling software would check assumptions about objects such as "if you remove a man's arm, he is still considered the same man" (in business context, yes) and "a company is the same as the people who work in it" (it's not). Basic stuff; people tend to know it intuitively, but that intuition tends not to make it into software, which causes breakage.
One of the drawbacks of testing is that it only tells you whether the code works with the tests you put into the suite; meanwhile, you may have much less confidence in whether the code will always work in every situation in which it will ever be used.
:-) In some cases, though, it feels as if the proof effort could be automated - I often find myself worrying over large stretches of code that is rather boilerplate, just shuffling around Java Collections or simple C structs and such - and if it could, it would mean a large reduction in the amount of test suite I'd have to develop to cover the same amount of code. All I'd need to do is come up with the pre- and post-conditions, which I would've had to do for the test suite anyway.
In your case, you developed a very comprehensive suite, and I'd assume from your post that you know what you're doing, so your confidence level would be high anyway. (Namely, about 98%.) The problem is that you had to laboriously develop this suite and ensure that it covered (at least at first) all of the code; and then when/if more code was added, the suite would have to be expanded to cover that, and so on. Building the suite isn't easy; it takes much effort.
One of the holy grails of programming is proving program correctness - if A, B, and C are true, and program P is executed, verify that C, D, and E will always be true afterward. Straightforward enough, until the program gets over about, oh, ten lines.
Later, if the code must be extended, the prover software could theoretically tell me whether the post-conditions will still hold, and if not, when they won't. Then I could either write code to handle the problem cases, or rewrite the post-conditions, and run the prover again. Comparably less effort than extending the test suite.
Correctness proofs aren't Ms. Livschitz' thrust, I admit, but I feel it's the ultimate key to bug-free code, and her promoted ideas of a more strict component architecture and stress on closer adherence between code objects and real-world objects lend themselves to making these proofs more achievable. If we had more universal and strictly defined code constructs for entities such as people, business transactions, chemical reactions, etc., we could be much more confident in the soundness of the programs we build with them.
...it also seemed like she misstated Java's approach as a "sandbag architecture" as opposed to a "sandbox architecture". I keep trying to visualize programmers writing more and more Java code to stave off the inevitable surge of bugs....
More importantly: will they serve donuts at the concession stand?
As others have said, this has already happened. More specifically, the theory that "if anyone discovers just exactly what the universe is for and why we are here, that it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable" in fact implied why we were here (namely, to discover the above theory), and so it no longer holds.
Which means the purpose of the universe and of ourselves is now ridiculously simple and inane, and furthermore, if we ever figure it out, it won't be replaced. Which is a shame.
What the hell are they gonna do? Take samples of each other?
"Spirit just detected iron in Opportunity's left solar panel! Advantage Spirit!! Oh wait, here comes Beagle... DEATH FROM ABOVE!!!" *wham*
The real quantum physicist will post a superposition of all possible comments with attached probabilities, so your browser will be able to randomly select which one to show you.
If only Slashdot could do this. Then, for each article, I could read just one comment, modded +15 Funny/Insightful/Informative, and be done with my day in 1/5 the time.
Maybe the Morocco rock is actually part of an Earth rover from Mars. Broke off when some dingbat Martian intern forgot to convert between grobfritzes and miftues.
Sooo....
Mars is really Earth, and we've actually been on Mars all this time???
Maybe he forgot to mention to you that it was a gay strip club.
NTTAWWT. Not at all.
It DOES leave a mark.
On the paper.
Bertie sort of addresses this in his reply as well, but I thought I'd chime in here and say that I, too, would get a kick out of an exceedingly tiny car, provided it at least looks reasonably good (i.e. not a Yugo). Hell, I'll give up on looks if I could fold it up and carry it like a briefcase, a la The Jetsons.
A few years ago I toured some of Europe with some friends in a Smart. Nifty car. You can see it here. Good news, or bad, depending on how you look at it: they plan to debut in the US in 2006.
How about Ciaran Hinds as Thrawn? Tall, imposing figure, dark hair, played President Nemerov in The Sum of all Fears. Irish-born IIRC, but he could certainly do some accent if needed.
The difference is, you can use the Internet at work. TV, not so much. (Unless you work at a TV station, or your boss is some hippie who's never around.)
So you've replaced an hour of work with an hour of Internet, and an hour of TV with an hour of socializing.
And yes, I'm being facetious. A lot of work gets done on the net...
New home for humanity.
Dude, I hate to be the first to tell you this, but humans breathe air. This means that, from a pure economic standpoint, Mars won't be settled until Antarctica is full. Since I think the planet Trantor is more fun to imagine than to actually live on, I think we'd better find a solution to the population problem that takes effect before Antarctica is full.
Your response is uninformed. It won't matter how licked our population problem is on Earth, if an asteroid hits it.
Besides, no one would advocate settling Mars solely in order to relieve population pressure on Earth anyway. You'd have to ship over 25000 people up, every single day, to keep Earth's population constant.
And Gandalf the White suddenly turning to the camera and saying, "I'm born again!"
This is why I like Robert Zemeckis so much. He does the best job I've seen of keeping CG strictly in service to story, and as a corollary, making it look as little like CG as possible. Remember Contact? Forrest Gump? When the orderly lifted Lt. Dan Taylor out of his bed, I had to force myself to remember that Gary Sinise is not an amputee.
This must be why the terrorist alert went to orange!