[trustable-software] Exploring the "Hypothesis for software to be trustable"

Rob Kendrick rob.kendrick at codethink.co.uk
Wed Jan 3 10:09:57 GMT 2018


On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:58:36AM +0000, Paul Sherwood wrote:
> On 2018-01-03 09:38, Duncan Hart wrote:
> >This might be getting a bit ahead.... do you have a candidate language
> >to describe the requirements?
> 
> Hah :)

It's an important point; writing English unambiguously while also being
succinct is a skill few have.  I hope the alternative is not to
legislate the use of Lojban.

> >On 3 January 2018 at 20:31, <trustable at panic.fluff.org> wrote:
>
> >>I'm interested to see in inclusion of 'Concise' within this
> >>list. How do you imagine we can measure 'Concise' ?
> 
> Edmund - so far I haven't concluded that we need to be able to
> measure everything. If you believe that we *do* need to measure
> something like this, can you justify why?

If you take "concise" to be an absolute rather than a variable quality,
you can measure it by seeing if you can find a shorter alternative
wording that is as equally comprehensive.

-- 
Rob Kendrick, Senior Consulting Developer                Codethink Ltd.
Telephone: +44 7880 657 193              203 Ducie House, Ducie Street,
https://www.codethink.co.uk/        Manchester, M1 2JW, United Kingdom.



More information about the trustable-software mailing list