On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
brangdon / cix.co.uk (Dave Harris) wrote:

>
>I mostly agree with this, and it bothers me that XP advocates don't seem 
>to pay much attention to coverage tools.

The short reason, and I don't mean it to be curt, is that we are
paying attention to defect detections, not to coverage. When defects
slip through the net, we improve the net. Coverage is interesting, and
some XP teams are using it. I think it's a good tool for learning how
to test. In my opinion,  it's secondary to the goal of producing code
that is [sufficiently] defect-free.

Ronald E Jeffries
http://www.XProgramming.com
http://www.objectmentor.com