There's testing, and then there's testing [humor]greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
AGGRESSION TESTING: If this doesn't work, I'm gonna kill somebody.
COMPRESSION TESTING: 
CONFESSION TESTING: Okay, Okay, I did program that bug.
CONGRESSIONAL TESTING: Are you now, or have you ever been a bug?
DEPRESSION TESTING: If this doesn't work, I'm gonna kill myself.
EGRESSION TESTING: Uh-oh, a bug... I'm outta here.
DIGRESSION TESTING: Well, it works, but can I tell you about my truck...
EXPRESSION TESTING: #@%^&*!!!, a bug.
OBSESSION TESTING: I'll find this bug if it's the last thing I do.
OPPRESSION TESTING: Test this now!
POISSON TESTING: Alors! Regardez le poisson!
REPRESSION TESTING: It's not a bug, it's a feature.
SECESSION TESTING: The bug is dead! Long live the bug!
SUGGESTION TESTING: Well, it works but wouldn't it be better if...
-- Brooks (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 26, 1999
There are eight different meaning for a "correct [compliant] program":
1. A program contain no syntactic errors.
2. A program contains no compilation errors or failures during program execution.
3. There exists test data for which the program gives correct answers.
4. For typical sets of test data, the program gives correct answers.
5. For difficult sets of test data, the program gives correct answers.
6. For all possible sets of test data which are valid with respect to the problem specification, the program gives correct answers.
7. For all possible sets of valid test data, and all likely conditions of erroneous input, the program gives correct answers.
8. For all possible input, the program gives correct answers.
From Conway, A Primer on Discipled Programming, 1978. Quoted in Principles of Software Engineering and Design, Zelkowitz, Shaw, and Gannon, 1979. (Hey I don't have invent this stuff, ya can look it up too!)
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (email@example.com), August 26, 1999.
I've worked with many who thought #2 was plenty good enough.
Wonder how their projects are going.
-- bw (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 26, 1999.
No need to go all the way to #2. I've had to disabuse students (and two "journeyman" programmers!) of the notion that #1 was sufficient!
-- Mad Monk (email@example.com), August 27, 1999.