4 ms·

> They're what ensure that when you find inefficiency or bugs, that they not only get fixed, but that they never happen again. This doesn't work. You shouldn't

> They're what ensure that when you find inefficiency or bugs, that they not only get fixed, but that they never happen again. This doesn't work. You shouldn't focus too much on making causes of bugs to never happen again, they will happen and they don't matter for operations as new code will bring back old causes of bugs and introduce new ones. What you should focus on is making sure that when bugs do happen they don't cause any trouble. Be realistic about bugs, expect bugs.

MaulingMonkey 8y ago
It's not a panacea but there's a lot you can do that does work. Maybe not 100% of the time, maybe not even 90% of the time for some bugs, but stuff that works nonetheless. Better unit test coverage, regression tests, new linters and static analysis passes, fuzzers, explosive runtime checks that catch problems earlier and more obvious ways, ...
- abraham_lincoln 8y ago
  sentry.io
peterwwillis 8y ago
Of course it helps to make your application resilient to failure, but it does not help to ignore the causes of bugs. I would say most bugs are entropy, or a human doing something wrong, or processes that haven't accounted for some edge case. A lot of these can be prevented, and a common way to do that is to watch them happen, document them, and then implement a mechanism to fix the cause when it starts to happen.