4 ms·

>99% of bugs are there because there wasn't time to do things better For a very narrow definition of 'better', maybe. I'd argue most bugs are there because the

by tziki 6y ago

>99% of bugs are there because there wasn't time to do things better For a very narrow definition of 'better', maybe. I'd argue most bugs are there because the cost of a bug is less than the cost of developer time it's take to prevent such bugs. There are industries where the cost of a bug is very high, but mostly bugs are like unemploymency rates: it's almost never economically feasible to get them down to zero.

Scandiravian 6y ago
I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways, so I agree with your point. What I'm reading is a good "why" - why wasn't there time to prevent this bug. Better is a subjective word, so I think I could have made my point more clear by instead writing "99% of bugs are there because there wasn't allocated enough time to prevent them" Do you agree more with that statement than the one I originally posted? :)
bonoboTP 6y ago
> I'd argue most bugs are there because the cost of a bug is less than the cost of developer time You make it seem more planned and reasoned out than it really is. I mean, you can make a meta-argument, that market evolution and pressures push things towards that optimal cost-benefit spot, but on the micro scale it often just happenstance. Again, the meta-argument can be that even doing the cost-benefit analysis is not worth the cost, but it's quite handwavy. What counts as "better" anyway? From the engineering perspective it's about efficiency, bug-freeness, elegance. From the company perspective, profits. From the manager perspective, looking good and getting promoted. You can often game the system by rushing a subpar product out the door, downplaying and not even caring about the defects, wooing customers into buying in with clever sales tactics and marketing, then moving on before things start crumbling down. In some sense this was worth it in terms of your personal costs and benefits and all was done in the best possible way.

by tziki 6y ago

Scandiravian 6y ago

I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways, so I agree with your point. What I'm reading is a good "why" - why wasn't there time to prevent this bug. Better is a subjective word, so I think I could have made my point more clear by instead writing "99% of bugs are there because there wasn't allocated enough time to prevent them" Do you agree more with that statement than the one I originally posted? :)

bonoboTP 6y ago

> I'd argue most bugs are there because the cost of a bug is less than the cost of developer time You make it seem more planned and reasoned out than it really is. I mean, you can make a meta-argument, that market evolution and pressures push things towards that optimal cost-benefit spot, but on the micro scale it often just happenstance. Again, the meta-argument can be that even doing the cost-benefit analysis is not worth the cost, but it's quite handwavy. What counts as "better" anyway? From the engineering perspective it's about efficiency, bug-freeness, elegance. From the company perspective, profits. From the manager perspective, looking good and getting promoted. You can often game the system by rushing a subpar product out the door, downplaying and not even caring about the defects, wooing customers into buying in with clever sales tactics and marketing, then moving on before things start crumbling down. In some sense this was worth it in terms of your personal costs and benefits and all was done in the best possible way.