Isaac Gouy
Posts: 527
Nickname: igouy
Registered: Jul, 2003
|
|
Re: word games
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2007 2:47 PM
|
|
James Watson wrote
> > There's no mention of requirements, let alone
> > "meets all requirements".
>
> It doesn't say anything about specifications either. You
> proposed that specification was the criteria to judge
> whether something is correct. I was merely pointing out
> that there is a common understanding of the relationship
> between requirements and specification. I merely did this
> because of your bizarre argument that requirements are not
> related to correctness. I generally wouldn't need to
> point out such trivial facts in a sane and rational
> discussion.
1) No, you were not "merely pointing out that there is a common understanding of the relationship between requirements and specification". You made a statement about "correct" and "correctness" [Jul 30, 2007 8:43 AM], quibbled about the need to define those terms [Jul 30, 2007 9:28 AM], and claimed the unwritten definition in your head was the same definition used by the vast majority of English speakers [Jul 30, 2007 2:03 PM].
You claimed "I am talking about 'correct' in the way it's defined by the vast majority of English speakers" [Jul 30, 2007 2:03 PM] but so far you have not provided a single example of 'the commonly understood "meets all requirements"' [Jul 30, 2007 12:50 PM].
All of that was before you mentioned "the relationship between requirements and specification" for the first time [Jul 30, 2007 3:00 PM].
2) Now you falsely claim that I have made a "bizarre argument that requirements are not related to correctness". Where exactly am I supposed to have made that argument?
-snip-
> You are the one trying to redefine words in order to prove
> your argument. Trying to make up a new definition for the
> word 'correct' is an absurd word game.
I am indeed the one who understood that words mean different things to different people, and so made clear to Cedric how I understood what he had written [Jul 26, 2007 2:51 PM].
You seem to be insisting that the definitions in your head don't need to be stated because somehow they are the real definitions, and any other meanings are redefinitions or new definitions.
> There is no doubt in my mind that the term requirements is
> understood to include a formal specification of
> requirements and a number of assumed requirements such as
> 'runs without crashing' by anyone who speaks English and
> has worked for any significant time in the software
> industry. In any real sense of whether the software is
> 'correct' would be derived from the required properties
> and functions of the software (a.k.a 'the requirements')
> and not based on whether it passes a test.
It's commonplace for someone to have no doubt and yet still be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
> The concept that passing all tests makes the software
> correct is patently absurd. If the program crashes are
> you seriously going to argue that it is 'correct' because
> it passed all tests? Testing is a way of trying to gauge
> the correctness. It doesn't define the correctness of
> software unless you requirements are specified as passing
> a number of tests which would severely limit the kinds of
> requirements that could be defined.
I wrote - 'When we say "correct" I think we're saying that the program corresponds to the spec as defined by our tests...' [Jul 26, 2007 2:51 PM] - and you dismissed it out of hand "The definition you attempted to apply to 'correct' is circular." [Jul 30, 2007 11:03 AM].
Apparently you like it better when you say it - "It doesn't define the correctness of software unless you requirements are specified as passing a number of tests ..."
|
|
Previous Topic
