This blog post is about my notes on slide set for BBST Foundations lecture 4: Programming fundamentals and coverage.
First read: “SOFTWARE NEGLIGENCE AND TESTING COVERAGE” by Cem Kaner. Gives list of 101 coverage measures. Yes, you read it right. There are 101 different coverage measures!
Second reading is “How to misuse code coverage by Brian Marick”. Tool for code coverage is not a hammer, but it can help a lot. Summary: “Developers care more about whether their code does what was intended; product testers care more about whether what was intended is right. Because product testers are looking for requirements-level or specification-level omissions, coverage provides fewer and weaker clues than it does to developers, who are looking for design-level and code-level omissions.”
Third reading is “Got you covered by Michael Bolton”. What is complete testing? All possible test having been perfectly performed. There are known unknowns, and there are unknown unknowns.
Fourth reading is “What every computer scientist should know about floating point arithmetic” by David Goldberg. I skimmed over it. It is detailed paper about floating number format in computers. If your stakeholder business depends in great amount about floating point operations, you will read this paper in detail.
Following reading has interesting title: “An interview with the old man of floating point”.
Sixth reading is “Experience with the cost of different coverage goals for testing”.Gives for which coverage types is reasonable to set 100% coverage using unit testing.
I skimmed that reading. I also skimmed reading book: Charles Petzold (1993), Code: The Hidden Language 
of Computer Hardware and Software. The book explains codes using examples form everyday life. From best friends to modern computers.
The we have: overflow concept, data representation systems (binary, decimal), float, data structures, coverage.
Recommended reading book: “Introduction to software testing”
Interesting interview: I heard for the first time concept of testing requirements that I like very much. It is similar to my notion of common sense requirements.
“””You use coverage analysis to assure quality of your set of tests, not the quality of the actual product.”””