Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163800 > unrolled thread
| Started by | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-21 00:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-06-02 19:47 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 136 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-21 00:57 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:13 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-21 11:39 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-21 13:23 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 22:36 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:00 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-24 20:27 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-05-25 06:56 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-25 07:42 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 09:39 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-25 09:37 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-25 13:05 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:07 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 13:34 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 14:02 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:46 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-26 19:17 -0500
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-27 06:56 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 07:26 -0500
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 14:40 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-25 16:19 -0300
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 16:15 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 22:29 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-25 21:19 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-26 16:34 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:04 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 13:28 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 14:06 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 18:57 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 18:19 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 18:35 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-26 22:05 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-27 15:33 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-27 15:40 -0300
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-26 14:43 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 11:03 -0500
Re: CS instead of math? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-26 16:27 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 17:52 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:27 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-31 20:06 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:08 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 07:17 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 05:31 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 11:56 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-01 16:00 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 17:15 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 19:28 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:03 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:05 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 12:48 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 17:34 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 07:50 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-02 10:37 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 12:33 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-02 12:08 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 08:17 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-06-02 09:49 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-06-02 14:09 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-06-02 14:12 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-02 19:44 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 15:02 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:44 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:43 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:42 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 22:18 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 22:03 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 12:47 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 20:58 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 07:29 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 11:59 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:48 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 12:41 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:04 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 07:59 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 08:18 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 19:53 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 12:15 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 11:27 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 07:21 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-22 13:15 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 09:53 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-25 07:18 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 09:42 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 16:15 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 22:31 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-26 11:23 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 11:37 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-26 17:56 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-26 16:36 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:51 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-25 07:43 -0500
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-26 17:55 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:14 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-27 17:40 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 18:46 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:28 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 16:09 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:07 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 08:58 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 05:48 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 12:06 +0200
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:46 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-06-03 16:05 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:49 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-06-04 22:29 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 12:27 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:07 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 08:12 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 19:56 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-03 09:17 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:20 -0700
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:10 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-02 13:57 -0500
Re: CS instead of math? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-06-02 17:43 -0300
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:08 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:05 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 10:38 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:41 +0100
Re: CS instead of math? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 05:49 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 19:58 -0400
Re: CS instead of math? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:35 +0000
Re: CS instead of math? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-02 19:47 -0700
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 20:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nikqro01pm6@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164171 |
On 2016-05-31, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: > Testing cannot definitively prove that code is correct. Even if it could, it can't determine whether the specification to which the code was written has any bearing on what the customer needs. Or wants. Or will want next week. > Formal verification is an entirely valid field of study within computer > science, and indeed, it is part of the "science" in computer science. > The methods and tools are widely used in hardware design, presumably > because once something is committed to silicon, correcting errors is > expensive. The spirit of getting it right the first time has long > been lost in the software realm, to say nothing of actually shipping > a finished product. "There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over." Even if you could get it right (first time or otherwise), the marketing department's obsession with constant change will have them demanding that you break your perfect solution for the next release. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 21:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b7ffb57cb13adb98a1ef@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164182 |
In article <nikqro01pm6@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid says... > > On 2016-05-31, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: > > > Testing cannot definitively prove that code is correct. > > Even if it could, it can't determine whether the specification to > which the code was written has any bearing on what the customer needs. > Or wants. Or will want next week. Well, that depends on the testing. If the testing involves the customer sitting in front of the machine, testing can very quickly determine whether the code has any bearing on what he wants. > > > Formal verification is an entirely valid field of study within computer > > science, and indeed, it is part of the "science" in computer science. > > The methods and tools are widely used in hardware design, presumably > > because once something is committed to silicon, correcting errors is > > expensive. The spirit of getting it right the first time has long > > been lost in the software realm, to say nothing of actually shipping > > a finished product. > > "There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over." > > Even if you could get it right (first time or otherwise), the marketing > department's obsession with constant change will have them demanding > that you break your perfect solution for the next release.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 07:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160601071739.5d9b5c4ab1de55f8b25bac32@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164202 |
On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:08:58 -0400 "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <nikqro01pm6@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid > says... > > > > On 2016-05-31, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: > > > > > Testing cannot definitively prove that code is correct. > > > > Even if it could, it can't determine whether the specification to > > which the code was written has any bearing on what the customer needs. > > Or wants. Or will want next week. > > Well, that depends on the testing. If the testing involves the customer > sitting in front of the machine, testing can very quickly determine > whether the code has any bearing on what he wants. Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for the edge cases than there is for the main flow. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 05:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b8759b3d13341898a1f4@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164206 |
In article <20160601071739.5d9b5c4ab1de55f8b25bac32@eircom.net>, steveo@eircom.net says... > > On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:08:58 -0400 > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In article <nikqro01pm6@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid > > says... > > > > > > On 2016-05-31, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: > > > > > > > Testing cannot definitively prove that code is correct. > > > > > > Even if it could, it can't determine whether the specification to > > > which the code was written has any bearing on what the customer needs. > > > Or wants. Or will want next week. > > > > Well, that depends on the testing. If the testing involves the customer > > sitting in front of the machine, testing can very quickly determine > > whether the code has any bearing on what he wants. > > Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for the > edge cases than there is for the main flow. And sometimes you have to make an evaluation on whether the edge case will occur in practice and if not then note it and move on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 11:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160601115643.d758017ccdfd23481e9592a2@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164213 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:31:57 -0400 "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <20160601071739.5d9b5c4ab1de55f8b25bac32@eircom.net>, > steveo@eircom.net says... > > > > On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:08:58 -0400 > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <nikqro01pm6@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid > > > says... > > > > > > > > On 2016-05-31, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Testing cannot definitively prove that code is correct. > > > > > > > > Even if it could, it can't determine whether the specification to > > > > which the code was written has any bearing on what the customer > > > > needs. Or wants. Or will want next week. > > > > > > Well, that depends on the testing. If the testing involves the > > > customer sitting in front of the machine, testing can very quickly > > > determine whether the code has any bearing on what he wants. > > > > Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for > > the edge cases than there is for the main flow. > > And sometimes you have to make an evaluation on whether the edge case > will occur in practice and if not then note it and move on. "We won't see that it's a one in a million chance". -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 16:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <D42dndbWsYTgZdPKnZ2dnUU78SGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #164228 |
On 01/06/2016 11:56, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > "We won't see that it's a one in a million chance". Pity we do ten million transactions a month.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 17:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160601171528.512afb583ef07898600a9ae6@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164251 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:00:23 +0100 Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote: > On 01/06/2016 11:56, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > > "We won't see that it's a one in a million chance". > > Pity we do ten million transactions a month. First version I heard had it at ten million per hour. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 19:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nind1e0u7@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164258 |
On 2016-06-01, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:00:23 +0100
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2016 11:56, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>> "We won't see that it's a one in a million chance".
>>
>> Pity we do ten million transactions a month.
>
> First version I heard had it at ten million per hour.
A gracious hello. Here at the Phone Company we handle
eighty-four billion calls a year, serving everyone from
presidents and kings to the scum of the earth. So, we
realize that, every so often, you can't get an operator,
or for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order,
or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make.
We don't care!
Watch this... [presses a button and console lights go out]
We just lost Peoria.
You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar
matrix of space-age technology that is so sophisticated
[hits buttons with elbows] even _we_ can't handle it.
But that's your problem, isn't it? So, the next time
you complain about your phone service, why don't you try
using two Dixie cups with a string?
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.
-- Lily Tomlin
ObFolklore: the skit shown on SNL was shot at a Honeywell
mainframe installation.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nin6qr4ipl@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164228 |
On 2016-06-01, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:31:57 -0400 > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <20160601071739.5d9b5c4ab1de55f8b25bac32@eircom.net>, >> steveo@eircom.net says... >> >>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:08:58 -0400 >>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <nikqro01pm6@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid >>>> says... >>>> >>>>> On 2016-05-31, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Testing cannot definitively prove that code is correct. >>>>> >>>>> Even if it could, it can't determine whether the specification to >>>>> which the code was written has any bearing on what the customer >>>>> needs. Or wants. Or will want next week. >>>> >>>> Well, that depends on the testing. If the testing involves the >>>> customer sitting in front of the machine, testing can very quickly >>>> determine whether the code has any bearing on what he wants. >>> >>> Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for >>> the edge cases than there is for the main flow. >> >> And sometimes you have to make an evaluation on whether the edge case >> will occur in practice and if not then note it and move on. > > "We won't see that it's a one in a million chance". At the very top of my list of Famous Last Words is: "Oh, don't worry about that - it'll never happen." I quickly learned that "never" is usually about six months. Since then I have refused to accept the "will never happen" line - if for no other reason than to get the customer to choose what sort of nasal demons he'd like to see when it does. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnfukbl5arphen3gk4s86sg8cguq5njnmr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #164265 |
On 1 Jun 2016 17:42:51 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
[snip]
>At the very top of my list of Famous Last Words is: "Oh, don't worry
>about that - it'll never happen." I quickly learned that "never" is
>usually about six months. Since then I have refused to accept the
>"will never happen" line - if for no other reason than to get the
>customer to choose what sort of nasal demons he'd like to see when
>it does.
And as I have related, one of my questons to a manager was
answered with a never-happen, the manager who said that was called
over somewhere, and then he came back to sheepishly say that it just
happened.
I sometimes ask that if it does happen, if I can kill the person
saying it.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 17:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b9182e7e7027c998a1ff@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164228 |
In article <20160601115643.d758017ccdfd23481e9592a2@eircom.net>, steveo@eircom.net says... > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:31:57 -0400 > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In article <20160601071739.5d9b5c4ab1de55f8b25bac32@eircom.net>, > > steveo@eircom.net says... > > > > > > On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:08:58 -0400 > > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <nikqro01pm6@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid > > > > says... > > > > > > > > > > On 2016-05-31, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Testing cannot definitively prove that code is correct. > > > > > > > > > > Even if it could, it can't determine whether the specification to > > > > > which the code was written has any bearing on what the customer > > > > > needs. Or wants. Or will want next week. > > > > > > > > Well, that depends on the testing. If the testing involves the > > > > customer sitting in front of the machine, testing can very quickly > > > > determine whether the code has any bearing on what he wants. > > > > > > Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for > > > the edge cases than there is for the main flow. > > > > And sometimes you have to make an evaluation on whether the edge case > > will occur in practice and if not then note it and move on. > > "We won't see that it's a one in a million chance". Not quite. "We have never sold a policy in that cell and we no longer market that product, so that cell is of no relevance to our business."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3veukbhh8jmmstu0286ek84m82ct0q84kt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #164206 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:17:39 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for the
>edge cases than there is for the main flow.
Sometimes? I would say it is at least usually.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 17:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <976535801.486509118.985755.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164271 |
Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:17:39 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > [snip] > >> Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for the >> edge cases than there is for the main flow. > > Sometimes? I would say it is at least usually. > This is often a big shock to new college graduates starting their first real job. Most assignments the prof just wants to see something that runs using the data provided, and there is limited time to get it done, so usually no attention is paid to detecting and handling errors. All of a sudden the newbie has to write a program that will be handed any old garbage data, and just ABENDing is not a valid option. (speaking from experience, even if ancient) -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 07:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160602075054.9b81ac13e13d213a2a02ce1c@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164292 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:34:03 -0400 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:17:39 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for the > >> edge cases than there is for the main flow. > > > > Sometimes? I would say it is at least usually. > > > > This is often a big shock to new college graduates starting their first > real job. Most assignments the prof just wants to see something that runs > using the data provided, and there is limited time to get it done, so > usually no attention is paid to detecting and handling errors. I am so glad (I wasn't at the time) that one of our early assignments was an integer expression evaluator, and we were expected to handle invalid input and run time errors (overflows, divide by zero). The year before it had been free choice of language, so one bright spark chose LISP and saved himself the trouble of worrying about overflows, my year we had to use (IIRC) AlgolW and get it right. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 10:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dragjiFmspuU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164296 |
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 07:50:54 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:34:03 -0400 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote: >> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:17:39 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot >> > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> > >> > [snip] >> > >> >> Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for the >> >> edge cases than there is for the main flow. >> > >> > Sometimes? I would say it is at least usually. >> > >> > >> This is often a big shock to new college graduates starting their first >> real job. Most assignments the prof just wants to see something that >> runs using the data provided, and there is limited time to get it done, >> so usually no attention is paid to detecting and handling errors. > > I am so glad (I wasn't at the time) that one of our early > assignments was an integer expression evaluator, and we were expected to > handle invalid input and run time errors (overflows, divide by zero). > The year before it had been free choice of language, so one bright spark > chose LISP and saved himself the trouble of worrying about overflows, my > year we had to use (IIRC) AlgolW and get it right. I'd use REXX: NUMERIC DIGITS 5000 -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 12:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160602123319.c377fb930bdcc803a54fb494@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164305 |
On 2 Jun 2016 10:37:38 GMT Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 07:50:54 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:34:03 -0400 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote: > >> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:17:39 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > >> > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > [snip] > >> > > >> >> Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for the > >> >> edge cases than there is for the main flow. > >> > > >> > Sometimes? I would say it is at least usually. > >> > > >> > > >> This is often a big shock to new college graduates starting their first > >> real job. Most assignments the prof just wants to see something that > >> runs using the data provided, and there is limited time to get it done, > >> so usually no attention is paid to detecting and handling errors. > > > > I am so glad (I wasn't at the time) that one of our early > > assignments was an integer expression evaluator, and we were expected to > > handle invalid input and run time errors (overflows, divide by zero). > > The year before it had been free choice of language, so one bright spark > > chose LISP and saved himself the trouble of worrying about overflows, my > > year we had to use (IIRC) AlgolW and get it right. > > I'd use REXX: > > NUMERIC DIGITS 5000 If you didn't handle the overflow that would have cost marks. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 12:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dralteFmspuU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164307 |
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 12:33:19 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2016 10:37:38 GMT Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 07:50:54 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:34:03 -0400 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:17:39 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>> >> > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> >> Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for
>> >> >> the edge cases than there is for the main flow.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sometimes? I would say it is at least usually.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> This is often a big shock to new college graduates starting their
>> >> first real job. Most assignments the prof just wants to see
>> >> something that runs using the data provided, and there is limited
>> >> time to get it done,
>> >> so usually no attention is paid to detecting and handling errors.
>> >
>> > I am so glad (I wasn't at the time) that one of our early
>> > assignments was an integer expression evaluator, and we were expected
>> > to handle invalid input and run time errors (overflows, divide by
>> > zero). The year before it had been free choice of language, so one
>> > bright spark chose LISP and saved himself the trouble of worrying
>> > about overflows, my year we had to use (IIRC) AlgolW and get it
>> > right.
>>
>> I'd use REXX:
>>
>> NUMERIC DIGITS 5000
>
> If you didn't handle the overflow that would have cost marks.
OK:
SIGNAL ON LOSTDIGITS
.
.
LOSTDIGITS:
!! :)
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 08:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dra8d6F4papU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164292 |
On 2016-06-01, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:17:39 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Edge cases are another matter, sometimes there's more code for the
>>> edge cases than there is for the main flow.
>>
>> Sometimes? I would say it is at least usually.
>>
>
> This is often a big shock to new college graduates starting their first
> real job. Most assignments the prof just wants to see something that runs
> using the data provided, and there is limited time to get it done, so
> usually no attention is paid to detecting and handling errors. All of a
> sudden the newbie has to write a program that will be handed any old
> garbage data, and just ABENDing is not a valid option. (speaking from
> experience, even if ancient)
Still goes on today. I spent a LOT of time before retiring (last year)
working on restricting the use of live data in testing for security
reasons. One of the (true) reasons the developers gave for wanting to
use live data for testing was that the production databases contained
a lot of instances of pathological combinations of data that no-one had
tested for because either they hadn't even thought of them, or everyone
had assumed they were impossible.
--
Today is Pungenday, the 7th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 09:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <draa83F57qgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164299 |
Huge wrote: > I spent a LOT of time before retiring (last year) > working on restricting the use of live data in testing One system I look after (the o/s and networking parts rather than the software) takes a nightly copy of the live database into the test database, in the process it mangles all the human readable names, addresses, and identifiers. This gives the same size of data with the same relations between rows in the tables to work on. I think it uses a temporary hash to form the mangled version then throws it away before committing to the test database, I suppose the mangling could be subverted by the developer but he (one left from the original team of three) could subvert the system anyway. It allows testing or demonstrating of problems to the likes of me without seeing patient data, and when I need to test printing it ends up looking like it's in Klingon, hopefully no pharmacy would ever issue such a methadone prescription!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 12:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160602120934.3ca07f2fe5bcac326e58061f@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164301 |
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 09:49:08 +0100 Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote: > Huge wrote: > > > I spent a LOT of time before retiring (last year) > > working on restricting the use of live data in testing > > One system I look after (the o/s and networking parts rather than the > software) takes a nightly copy of the live database into the test > database, in the process it mangles all the human readable names, > addresses, and identifiers. This gives the same size of data with the > same relations between rows in the tables to work on. Yep distorted real data is often the best test data - at one PPOE we had vast amounts of bank data (from many banks) with real names and addresses but faked numbers (one set we had to re-randomise because they were way out of reasonable range) because we needed to work with real world name and address data. Those were sensitive data sets but nothing like as sensitive (internally at least) as they would have been with the real numbers attached. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web