Re: Testing relational databases
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:05:27 +0200
Message-ID: <13e054sraz8id.2847n420kaq.dlg_at_40tude.net>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The techniques (see above) to deliver what "we" want are already here. :-)
> And they work very well indeed.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:05:27 +0200
Message-ID: <13e054sraz8id.2847n420kaq.dlg_at_40tude.net>
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:38:33 +0100, S Perryman wrote:
> "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1152548050.629713.290800_at_s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>S Perryman wrote:
>
>>> "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> > Now, I would argue that what we most often want is actually >>>> not existential quantification but universal quantification. In fact, >>>> what we *really* want is existential quantification, universal >>>> quantification, and witnesses, and we want them all available >>>> both at compile time and at runtime. And we want the >>>> witnesses to be system generated wherever possible.
>
>>> Design By Contract ?? >>> Specification-directed testing ?? >>> Design For Testability ??
>
>>> All techniques that by themselves or together will give you for a large >>> majority of systems exactly what "we want" .
>
>> I don't follow. What are you trying to say?
>
> The techniques (see above) to deliver what "we" want are already here. :-)
> And they work very well indeed.
Marshall, I would like recommend you an old (1981), but still actual book: The Science of Programming by David Gries. The title tells for itself.
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Mon Jul 10 2006 - 19:05:27 CEST