From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19726 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2004 04:54:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19436 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 04:54:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.254.0.204) by sourceware.org with QMTP; 12 Aug 2004 04:54:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 18537 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 04:54:06 -0000 Received: from dsl081-242-080.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO [192.168.1.111]) (gdb001@[64.81.242.80]) (envelope-sender ) by mail4.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 12 Aug 2004 04:54:06 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040811224305.D33D64D4015@stray.canids> References: <5956F1E2-EB0D-11D8-9949-000A9569836A@apple.com> <8A54B4DA-EB30-11D8-9650-000A95DA1012@speakeasy.net> <20040811062809.196A34D4015@stray.canids> <20040811224305.D33D64D4015@stray.canids> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Chris Friesen Subject: OT: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:54:00 -0000 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 On Aug 11, 2004, at 3:43 PM, Felix Lee wrote: > Chris Friesen : >> The code is an implementation that doesn't convey the objectives or >> intent. Is that behavior a bug or feature in the code? > > if a programmer isn't going to explain it in the code, why expect > them to explain it in a spec? having a separate spec is like > removing comments from the source and putting them in a different In many cases the code comments are not the equivalent of a plan or design. If they are, then that's great. It's not a specification because of where it lives, it is a specification by what it tells you of the design and objectives. A programming language doesn't do well communicating a guiding design. English isn't suited for programming a computer. Thus 'the code is not the spec'. When compilers operate on comments, I'll start calling comments code. Most people don't draw up architectural blueprints to build a dog house, they might use a pencil sketch. You could build a house without blueprints, but would you build a sky-scraper without them? Your specification should fit the project at hand, be it code comments, XMI specification proposal, sketches or blueprints. A specification is as much a design process as it is a document, a tool that you size and use to fit your needs. Cheers, - Chris