On Testing and Correctness Proofs

Testing can never prove the absence of errors, only their presence. Yet Correctness Proofs can only prove the absence of certain classes of errors, never the total absence of errors. Thus, Testing is superior in that it can prove errors which do not belong to any pre-defined class.

Testing is a check against requirements set by the very domain itself, while Correctness Proofs are a check against criteria introduced by the programmer himself. Thus, Testing is superior in that it lets the programmer receive feedback external from his own reasoning.

Testing does not intimately depend on the details of implementation, whereas Correctness Proofs are inherently dependent on them. Thus, Testing is superior in that it lets the programmer change his code with less maintenance expenses while not compromising correctness.

I read your post now and i decided that your point is stupid.

testing is a useful tool.

correctness proofs are a useful tool.

you should apply them when and there they are effective.

the shit you talk about is bandwagoning. Everyone hop on the test bandwagon! Everyone get off the correctness proof bandwagon!

This is the kind of stuff intellectual midgits need to hold onto to motivate themselves to learn how to do something like "test their code". On /prog/ I used to expect better...