From: Brian Marick <marick@...>
Date: 2002-04-22T23:15:20+09:00
Subject: RE: article about testers using Ruby.

--=====================_316413418==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 11:57 AM 4/21/02, Bob Calco wrote:

>2. There weren't any specifics so I could not give any suggestions one way 
>or the other.

Wait... I now realize you're basing your critique on the abstract, not the 
article. I think you're making too many assumptions about the details of 
the article.

Still, your comments are useful, because I do want to know how the abstract 
strikes people. Thanks. Your reaction - that the testing strategy can't 
possibly work - is one of the ones I'd hoped for. (I hope it's not the 
reaction people have to the entire article, though.)



P.S.  I do know that COM is different than OLE. I was careful not to say 
they were the same. I had to mention OLE because the Ruby module is called 
"win32ole". So I thought I'd use the fact that people are sloppy about this 
terminology to avoid spending word count on a digression. So I say the 
article uses as an example "the interface *you'll often hear described* as 
COM... or OLE". Maybe too subtle.

--
Brian Marick, marick@testing.com
www.testing.com - Software testing services and resources
www.testingcraft.com - Where software testers exchange techniques
www.visibleworkings.com - Adequate understanding of system internals

"Act always so as to increase the number of choices." -- Heinz von Foerster

--=====================_316413418==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 11:57 AM 4/21/02, Bob Calco wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#FF0000">2.
There weren't any specifics so I could not give any suggestions one way
or the
other.</font></blockquote><font face="arial" size=2 color="#FF0000"><br>
</font><font face="arial">Wait... I now realize you're basing your
critique on the abstract, not the article. I think you're making too many
assumptions about the details of the article.<br><br>
Still, your comments are useful, because I do want to know how the
abstract strikes people. Thanks. Your reaction - that the testing
strategy can't possibly work - is one of the ones I'd hoped for. (I hope
it's not the reaction people have to the entire article, though.)
<br><br>
<br><br>
P.S.&nbsp; I do know that COM is different than OLE. I was careful not to
say they were the same. I had to mention OLE because the Ruby module is
called &quot;win32ole&quot;. So I thought I'd use the fact that people
are sloppy about this terminology to avoid spending word count on a
digression. So I say the article uses as an example &quot;the interface
*you'll often hear described* as COM... or OLE&quot;. Maybe too subtle.
</font><br>
<br>
<div>--</div>
<div>Brian Marick, marick@testing.com</div>
<div><a href="http://www.testing.com/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>www.testing.com</a>
- Software testing services and resources</div>
<div><a href="http://www.testingcraft.com/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>www.testingcraft.com</a> - Where software testers exchange techniques</div>
<div><a href="http://www.visibleworkings.com/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>www.visibleworkings.com</a> - Adequate understanding of system internals</div>
<br>
<div>&quot;Act always so as to increase the number of choices.&quot; -- Heinz von Foerster</div>
</html>

--=====================_316413418==_.ALT--