bugs

[David Vaughan]

On 09/04/2006, at 6:23, Garrett Hylltun wrote:
>
> The thing is, that is not a bug.  The programmer did not make any  
> error in his code at all.  The code works as it was intended.
>
> You could also claim that if a user in Japan downloaded the program  
> and could not read it because it was in English and not Japanese,  
> that he could say that the program has a bug.
>
> Or a Linux user downloaded the Windows version, it would not run,  
> so it must be a bug.
>
> Your scenario is lacking completely, and rather a petty attempt to  
> push your belief.

Garrett

Thank you for the ad hominem attack in your last line. Mark has  
already disposed of your prior argument that there is no bug  
("programmer's intention") so I will not elaborate on his concise  
statement. For your further enlightenment here is a set categories of  
bugs:
- Requirements defects
- Design defects
- Source code defects
- User documentation defects
- "Bad fixes", or secondary defects found in repairs to prior defects
[source: Capers-Jones, "Applied Software Measurement"]

Your attempt to dismiss the basis of the single coding example I used  
seems rather an attempt to avoid the three conclusions I drew.
> - bugs happen, even when they are sincerely believed not to exist  
> and with the best will in the world, and testing which seemed  
> comprehensive at the time;
> - money matters in commercial decisions without greed per se being  
> a factor;
> - the morality of the developer is not questioned by the discovered  
> bug.

I will not discuss these further here with you because I see no point  
to it. I expect that great majority of developers would take these  
points as self-evident. If you wish to evangelise your position of  
bug-free heaven where commerce does not exist, write to me privately.  
Better still, write to someone else.

Where you have an actual bug of any category, post it to support or  
with Revzilla

David
>
> -Garrett