3 ms·

We don't need yet another step on the euphemism treadmill. Say "defect" long enough and eventually it represents the same idea as "bug". I have an instant negat

We don't need yet another step on the euphemism treadmill. Say "defect" long enough and eventually it represents the same idea as "bug". I have an instant negative reaction to the idea that "if it has defects, it may not be shipped ". Any moderately complex piece of software is guaranteed to have bugs. The action space of ex. a modern OS is way too big to test every possible code path. I'd rather have an OS with a few bugs than no OS at all. Move fast and break things (unless you're writing code for a space shuttle).

ht_th 6y ago
> I have an instant negative reaction to the idea that "if it has defects, it may not be shipped ". Any moderately complex piece of software is guaranteed to have bugs. Yes, but if there is a known defect in your software, do you release or not? To me, there is a difference between knowingly releasing faulty software or only after release discovering faults in the software. Unless there is no reasonable quality check in the software development and release procedures, because then you are not doing much better than knowingly releasing faulty software.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  There are known defects in civil engineering projects all the time. We design with tolerances to defects such that the entire system stands up. Real software is the same. Very very very few programs have ever been shipped without any defects.
watwut 6y ago
> We don't need yet another step on the euphemism treadmill. Say "defect" long enough and eventually it represents the same idea as "bug". The original point was that bug is euphemism for error. In 99.99% of cases, errors are not caused by insects. Dijsktra basically wanted to take step back on that treadmill and use proper word.
lapinot 6y ago
Do you realize that you're plain in what Dijkstra criticizes? All you say is being contered in the talk. > [..] way too big to test every possible code path He disregards tests. Most are futile. Maybe automated testing could make some sense (fuzzing, quickcheck, etc), but still, most are stupidly weak and offer no guarantee whatsoever (even quantitatively). > I'd rather have an OS with a few bugs than no OS at all. He specifically argues for error instead of bug so that we can't say it's "almost correct" but only that it is "wrong". "a few bugs" is just "wrong".

ht_th 6y ago

> I have an instant negative reaction to the idea that "if it has defects, it may not be shipped ". Any moderately complex piece of software is guaranteed to have bugs. Yes, but if there is a known defect in your software, do you release or not? To me, there is a difference between knowingly releasing faulty software or only after release discovering faults in the software. Unless there is no reasonable quality check in the software development and release procedures, because then you are not doing much better than knowingly releasing faulty software.

UncleMeat 6y ago
There are known defects in civil engineering projects all the time. We design with tolerances to defects such that the entire system stands up. Real software is the same. Very very very few programs have ever been shipped without any defects.

watwut 6y ago

> We don't need yet another step on the euphemism treadmill. Say "defect" long enough and eventually it represents the same idea as "bug". The original point was that bug is euphemism for error. In 99.99% of cases, errors are not caused by insects. Dijsktra basically wanted to take step back on that treadmill and use proper word.

lapinot 6y ago

Do you realize that you're plain in what Dijkstra criticizes? All you say is being contered in the talk. > [..] way too big to test every possible code path He disregards tests. Most are futile. Maybe automated testing could make some sense (fuzzing, quickcheck, etc), but still, most are stupidly weak and offer no guarantee whatsoever (even quantitatively). > I'd rather have an OS with a few bugs than no OS at all. He specifically argues for error instead of bug so that we can't say it's "almost correct" but only that it is "wrong". "a few bugs" is just "wrong".