Re: Writing, Coding, and Professionals

Anton Ertl wrote:

> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
writes:
>>A good programmer writes his/her comments in such a way that
>>a far better programmer could, in theory, start with just the
>>comments and end up with a working program that does the same
>>basic job that the original program does.
> 
> You want the complete specifications in the comments.
> 
> For most programs a complete specification is never written, so it
> would certainly be an improvement if it was.  However, I don't see why
> it should be in the comments.  Ok, an advantage would be that it would
> be more likely to be updated when the requirements change (rather than
> just updating the code).  But OTOH interspersing the spec with code
> and structuring it in the same way as the code makes it harder to
> understand.

When decomposing the functions towards the words you will use in the
application it can be beneficial to write the glossary for the words
(and reviewing the glossaries) long before you get to write the code
that sup****ts that functionality.

Ensuring that these glossary comments are traceable to and from the
original specification and that the code, when written, fully sup****ts
the glossary spec for the word is the foundation for certifying the code
compliant with the requirements. If you can then prove the codes
robustness by arduous testing you can gain a high degree of confidence
in the dependability of the system.

This might be as close as anyone gets to fully specified software.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E.Bennett@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************