tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3399985190174266183.post7239123544448556452..comments2023-05-12T20:08:28.850+05:30Comments on I Like Eclipse: "I have achieved Zero Defects"Madhuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05191409900046165475noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3399985190174266183.post-90578907154046261502010-03-24T07:23:07.887+05:302010-03-24T07:23:07.887+05:30I have never said that real world is simpler than ...I have never said that real world is simpler than software systems. But unlike the real world, the software systems are created by people. <br /><br />The whole idea of the blog is to convey that it is not possible to test all the 'states' in a discrete system. <br /><br />One way to handle this complexity is 'separation of concerns'. As you said, write small independent units with clear boundaries. This helps us to make each unit more testable. <br /><br />But still when you integrate the independent testable unit into a complete software system, the 'state space' of the software system sky rockets...Madhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05191409900046165475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3399985190174266183.post-1663184465207190442010-03-24T00:15:21.518+05:302010-03-24T00:15:21.518+05:30I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with you. Re...I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with you. Real world is simpler than the software system? How's that, when the system is a model to the reality?<br /><br />Continuous systems are simpler than discrete ones? How's that, when discrete states are simplification (probing) of a continuous space?<br /><br />I don't really think that the hardware being produced is less complicated than the software. The key to their relative high quality is intensive testing of small independent units. We should tend to do same in software industry, e.g. keeping testable units (e.g. methods) small and simple (with as small number of parameters as possible).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com