3 ms·
> My point would be to do whatever to improve interop. At the least, focus on ux. Intrinsic quality of the code does little to address this, as much as we devel
by cesarb 9y ago
> My point would be to do whatever to improve interop. At the least, focus on ux. Intrinsic quality of the code does little to address this, as much as we developers want otherwise.
Intrinsic quality of the code allows the developers to change the code faster and with less risk of breakage. This helps them address everything else, including interop and ux.
- taeric 9y agoThis is the argument, but evidence is actually severely lacking that it is the case. And let me be clear, I agree with the argument.
- cwyers 9y agoFixing the sort of bugs found by fuzzers doesn't always lead to cleaner, easier to maintain code. It depends on what the bug is and how it's fixed. Sometimes you just have to write something ugly and inscrutable to deal with how your compiler handles undefined behavior, memory allocation, etc. (Or, in other words: in unsafe languages, there's a class of bugs that occur precisely because doing it the straightforward, idiomatic way leads to the bug.) This doesn't make this bad or mean that you should leave bugs around, but fixing bugs found by a fuzzer is unlikely to lead to improvements in Office compatability, UX, etc.