2 ms·
Your’re missing his point. The issue is not the purpose of the effort, that’s clear, everyone agrees. The question I infer is closer to be something like: If
by WhitneyLand 9y ago
Your’re missing his point. The issue is not the purpose of the effort, that’s clear, everyone agrees. The question I infer is closer to be something like: If crashing bugs are inadvertently found in software, from whatever source, what would you expect the interest/motivation/urgency to be in fixing them?
It’s a good question but I’m not sure the answer is clear. On small projects I’d make the case that 100% of reproducible crashes should be fixed, always. However when the “project” approaches operating system scale and complexity, most pure principle policies like that cease to exist for practical reasons. Most decisions, not just bug fixing, are about tradeoffs/cost benefit considerations due to the simple realization you can’t boil the ocean.
- microcolonel 9y ago> you can’t boil the ocean. Call me crazy, but it seems like we have a responsibility to boil this ocean. If we don't, the quality will continue to spiral down into the abyss.
- WhitneyLand 9y agoBoil the ocean is an expression meaning do the impossible, so I don't think it matters much if we have a responsibility to do something we are incapable of. It does matter if we do the next best thing, and that's where the trade offs come in.