James Watson wrote > I prefer ambiguity to useless oversimplifications. I find > it strange that you think defining 'correct' as "passing > all tests" to be preferable to the commonly understood > "meets all requirements".
Where is it commonly understood that 'correct' means "meets all requirements"?
"And the final question is ‘How do we know that the program is in fact correct?’ The theory of programming tells us that this final assurance can in principle be given by mathematical reasoning and proof, guaranteeing that the specifications are a logical consequence of the text of the program." "The ideal of program correctness" Tony Hoare
Programs are verified "correct" against a specification - in contrast, the only way we can validate the program "meets all requirements" is to ask someone "is this what you wanted?".
> If we use the 'passes all tests' definition, a program > that is not tested is, by definition, correct.
If we apply the same level of absurdity to your suggested definition we will conjure up an equally absurd conclusion.
A program that is not tested is by definition untested.
Previous Topic
