Anton Aylward wrote:
On 12/09/2014 10:33 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
ellanios82 wrote:
On 12/09/2014 10:46 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
There tools such as formal programming, but I have not heard of anyone actually making productive use of it. It's too cumbersome, but in theory you can_prove_ that your code does exactly what it is specified to do. Now we just hope you have a perfect spec to write to, hahaha. ................
- btw - Tools : some must be fantastic-good : IIRC was it Yast was converted into Ruby code by robot-translator ?
I believe some automated code-generation was used yes. In my experience automatically generated code is largely unmaintainable. Once upon a time, I took over an application that was auto-generated in Ada. It was terrible and we rewrote it in assembler.
I would not say unmaintainable.
Look, for example, at the code produced by YACC and LEX.
That is very, very different. The code generated by yacc and lex does not need maintainance. You change the input and rerun the generation.
The thing is though, you don't maintain them as separate entities, you maintain the source code.
Precisely.
The reason I think this is a poor argument, Per, is that a compiler is an automated too for producing assembly code.
Usually automated code-generation is a one-way street driven once. I don't think you can put compiler generated assembler in that category. The generated code does not need maintenance, only the source. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (3.0°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - virtual servers, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org