home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!olivea!apple!applelink.apple.com
- From: JWBAXTER@HALCYON.HALCYON.COM
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.oop.macapp3
- Subject: Re: * Takeover Proposal *
- Message-ID: <199212220715.AA29609@halcyon.com>
- Date: 22 Dec 92 07:18:00 GMT
- Sender: daemon@Apple.COM
- Organization: AppleLink Gateway
- Lines: 29
-
- From: jwbaxter@halcyon.halcyon.com
- To: MACAPP3TECH$@applelink.apple.com
-
- >> A LOT of the bug reports are trivial little fixes, with no worries about
- >> distant side-effects, so why should every MacApp developer always have to
- >> individually modify his/her MacApp source?
- >
- I come from a world in which there is no such thing. ANY change
- invalidates all previous proof of correctness. [The company had several
- pretty hefty mainframes which when not otherwise engaged overnight would be
- running [self-scoring] regression testing to try to validate the most
- recent changes/patches. Every bug report and change approval generated
- additional regression tests based on the new information. The regresson
- testing was CONSTANTLY demonstrating that the "this cannot possibly affect
- anything except..." changes actually broke lots of things.]
-
- My comment is a little strong. "No worries" however is off the mark at the
- other end of the spectrum. OOP helps move everything towards the "no
- worries" end of things (when done correctly...there's a good bit of
- "not-correctly" lurking in MacApp, much of it imposed by the toolbox).
-
- Nonetheless, it's better for (most) needed changes to be made and proven
- centrally (as I indicated in a private message of support to Dave).
- --John
-
- --------------
- John W. Baxter jwbaxter@halcyon.com [BAXTER.JOHN on AppleLink, from
- AppleLink only.]
-
-