by "Ed" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Feb 28, 2008 at 12:18 PM
"Krishna Myneni" <krishnamyneni@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:T42xj.80484$vt2.52096@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ed wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Which suggests that test suites are mostly a "feel good" utility
> > i.e. one feels good when it p***** but otherwise has little value.
> > It impresses the customer but that's about all.
> >
> > Who would find Hayes useful? Probably not someone who has
> > brought up a forth. ...
>
> Are you considering only testing of Forth systems? What about using the
test
> suite to test applications? For instance, the extended version of the
Hayes
> tester, incor****ating extensions by David Williams and Anton Ertl, have
proved
> valuable in finding problems with the Forth Scientific Library modules.
These
> problems went unnoticed for many years. The findings are do***ented in
an
> earlier thread on automated FSL tests.
Bugs go by unnoticed because the program (or parts of it) haven't been
exercised. It's hard to believe that a well-used program would not show
up its errors relatively quickly. It may be that FSL modules just don't
get used.
My background is electronics instrumentation. These days most have
built-in self-diagnostics. They're there to provide the user with a quick
way to determine whether the instrument is basically functional. They
don't, nor can they, determine whether a fault exits.
I have nothing against the Hayes suite. If it shows up a problem then
it's better than if the error remained unfound.
