3 ms·

I was almost ready to start an argument. But the bottom line (verbatim) nails it! 99.999…% of all software is utter crap. If people would build houses like the

I was almost ready to start an argument. But the bottom line (verbatim) nails it! 99.999…% of all software is utter crap. If people would build houses like they build software we would generally all live in paper boxes glued together by duct tape. And those paper boxes would explode on a regular basis for unknown reasons… Still you will hear most people in this business saying: "That's fine". Look, "it works". I don't think this will ever change. One of the reasons this won't change (besides development costs of course) is imho the overall mindset that "bugs are unavoidable, any software has bugs". As long as it's a "natural" thing to deliver buggy crap, and people declare you outright crazy if you even mention that there's something quite wrong there, no chance that this will change (at least not until software will be produced mostly by machines).

ChrisMarshallNY 7y ago
I generally don't bother setting up bug trackers, as I get so few bugs. One reason is that I keep my scope fairly humble, so it can be argued that software that doesn't do that much doesn't have room for bugs. But I like to avoid dependencies, if at all possible, and have a number of habitual practices in my coding that I think result in exceptional quality. Problem is, it's not valued at all. I'm in a semi-retired status, and have found that no one wants decent quality. It's been rather depressing, TBH. One of the open-source systems I designed is becoming a worldwide infrastructure, and they have more bugs than ever (I don't code it anymore), and that means they have maybe 20 issues, in all; across about 50 subprojects. When I was doing it, it was a single-digit count, but only about five projects. It's still of remarkably high quality. The folks who took over are good, and follow good practices. Also, the substrate is very strong.

ChrisMarshallNY 7y ago

I generally don't bother setting up bug trackers, as I get so few bugs. One reason is that I keep my scope fairly humble, so it can be argued that software that doesn't do that much doesn't have room for bugs. But I like to avoid dependencies, if at all possible, and have a number of habitual practices in my coding that I think result in exceptional quality. Problem is, it's not valued at all. I'm in a semi-retired status, and have found that no one wants decent quality. It's been rather depressing, TBH. One of the open-source systems I designed is becoming a worldwide infrastructure, and they have more bugs than ever (I don't code it anymore), and that means they have maybe 20 issues, in all; across about 50 subprojects. When I was doing it, it was a single-digit count, but only about five projects. It's still of remarkably high quality. The folks who took over are good, and follow good practices. Also, the substrate is very strong.