21–30 of 63 posts
Bugs shouldn't happen. Actually, in some critical systems, bugs can't happen. Bugs aren't magic; they happen for a reason. It could be a broken dependency(unsupported versions, fatal bug in a dependency, deprecation, configuration etc.), resource limitation(out of memory, security breach etc.), poor design which leads to poor implementation(logical errors, bad data abstractions). Abstractly waving your hands and sayi…
Bugs shouldn't happen. Actually, in some critical systems, bugs can't happen. Bugs aren't magic; they happen for a reason. It could be a broken dependency(unsupported versions, fatal bug in a dependency, deprecation, configuration etc.), resource limitation(out of memory, security breach etc.), poor design which leads to poor implementation(logical errors, bad data abstractions). Abstractly waving your hands and sayi…
https://blog.acolyer.org/2017/05/29/an-empirical-study-on-th... says that they found 16 bugs in three formally-verified systems (including two bugs that didn't get caught because of bugs in the verifier). So, I'm pretty sure that bugs can happen. (Unless you mean that in certain critical systems, bugs can't be allowed to happen, in which case I agree.)
More, I'm pretty sure that most bugs don't happen for the reasons you list. I suspect that the majority of bugs are just poor implementation.
It's possible, however, for the opposite extreme to happen: The program wasn't buggy, but circumstances changed, and now it is. I'm thinking specifically of crypto code, which can be perfect... until a new attack is devised. Then the software is buggy, because it can't stop an attack that didn't exist when it was written.
When we do get software that has "no" bugs in critical systems, it's because of extreme care at every step: specification, design, implementation, review, and testing. Obsessive testing, and testing, and testing, and testing.
I have a funny feeling that the nontechnical people on my current project would be nodding their heads along to the article, but the truth is that our applications have bugs that 100% of our customers are running into; they simply aren't immediately noticeable to a layperson. That doesn't mean they're not important. The business relies on complying with the rules of third-party organizations and the software is blata…
I have a funny feeling that the nontechnical people on my current project would be nodding their heads along to the article, but the truth is that our applications have bugs that 100% of our customers are running into; they simply aren't immediately noticeable to a layperson. That doesn't mean they're not important. The business relies on complying with the rules of third-party organizations and the software is blata…
It's not exactly related to your post but remember that Agile != Sprints
Something about this rubbed me the wrong way and I realized it was because this pretends that ignoring much of the long tail of userbase is not only okay but beneficial to the majority. If, say, Quip ignored bugs in IE6 that's likely fine because my parents using their CRT iMac aren't going to be using Quip, but imagine if a crucial app like Gmail ignored older browsers; suddenly all the disadvantaged people that can…
This is a stretch. Seems like many people think of code as a living thing that just does what it wants, and us programmers have to beat it into submission.
The truth is, there can be bug free applications.
The problem I think is the complete opposite of the point of the article. Programmers need time to write good software. Without stopping to fix the things we run into, technical debt does what it's known for, and exponentially increases, and kills time that could be spent writing features.
So maybe software is like a living being in a way, that it needs to be cared for gently.
Bugs shouldn't happen. Actually, in some critical systems, bugs can't happen. Bugs aren't magic; they happen for a reason. It could be a broken dependency(unsupported versions, fatal bug in a dependency, deprecation, configuration etc.), resource limitation(out of memory, security breach etc.), poor design which leads to poor implementation(logical errors, bad data abstractions). Abstractly waving your hands and sayi…
> Actually, in some critical systems, bugs can't happen. https://blog.acolyer.org/2017/05/29/an-empirical-study-on-th... says that they found 16 bugs in three formally-verified systems (including two bugs that didn't get caught because of bugs in the verifier ). So, I'm pretty sure that bugs can happen. (Unless you mean that in certain critical systems, bugs can't be allowed to happen, in which case I agree.) More, I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not exactly related to your post but remember that Agile != Sprints
That is like Open Source != FOSS, a lost cause.
Loads of teams are nowhere near Scrum and work basically Kanban. That’s reasonably agile.