[Ticket#: 2006040510000641] Re: [OT] Articles to read

[David Vaughan]

On 08/04/2006, at 0:50, David Burgun <dburgun at dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>> One way of
>> putting it is that the boundaries of capability have been pushed
>> over the years while the rise in bugs has been disproportionately  
>> low.
>
> Over what years are you talking about? I really can't see this, for
> instance:
>
> When I first started in programming we used assembler on Mini-
> Computers...... Back then, programmers used to get paid a
> bonus for shipping bug free code, that bonus would decrease as the
> bug count increased. It was even possible to go into negative bonus
> which would be subtracted from bonus of the next project.

Sounds a fine idea but alas you are off my point. I understand QA  
processes very well. Your mini-computer/assembler example is  
inevitably of a simpler system compared with those one can readily  
create today in languages such as Rev. Yes, assembler programming is  
complex (been there, done that) but the delivered functionality of a  
3GL or later language is light years beyond what you and I were doing  
with kerosene-powered computers and rice-paper Hollerith cards.  
Complexity and errors per function point rise with the measurable  
size of the software whereas small, simple applications are simple to  
make relatively bug free. Despite that, the rate of errors per  
function point declines with more powerful languages, and those  
languages enable the delivery of applications of a complexity which  
could not reasonably be done thirty years ago. Hence my point that  
capabilities have extended at a disproportionately low error rate.   
Simple, and well established from industry benchmarks in at least the  
last twenty five years.
>
> When I first started of the Mac, the software was must more robust
> and bug free.
Not in my experience :-)
As Richard said elsewhere, perhaps my usage and environment exposed  
bugs you did not see, and now our positions are reversed.

Which brings me to Bob Warren's comment about ignoring bugs. I  
promise faithfully I do not ignore them, I just do not encounter  
significant bugs in my use of the IDE on OS X 10.4.5 with a zillion  
other applications running. I can not comment on Linux. When I find  
what I think is a bug I start by searching my own actions, maybe ask  
this list for help, see if someone else has it on Bugzilla and if not  
then I will raise it thanks to Ken's Revzilla interface. I have no  
current bugs in Bugzilla.
>
> All the Best
> Dave
and David