4 ms·

It's 'bug-free' in the same sense that qmail is bug free: you take a piece of software, design it very carefully to do only the minimum amount required to make

by roel_v 15y ago

It's 'bug-free' in the same sense that qmail is bug free: you take a piece of software, design it very carefully to do only the minimum amount required to make it fulfill its purpose, spend a lot of time on making sure there are no 'bugs' under a very strict technocratic definition of 'bugs' (i.e., few features, slow running speed, idiosyncratic workings aren't 'bugs') and then make a career out of marketing yourself as being able to write 'bug free' code. Of course to make the software useful in the real world, a lot of things have to be added to it - make sure to not include any of it in the 'core' otherwise the 'bug free' claim will go out the window really quickly. So yeah, in that sense I guess it's technically (which I use as a euphemism for 'autistically') correct to call TeX bug free (the bounty program for bugs found in it is quite famous, and part of fore-mentioned marketing).

gjm11 15y ago
You think Donald Knuth has made a career for himself out of being able to right 'bug free code'? Really? He's made a career for himself out of being an extremely creative computer scientist and writing outstandingly scholarly books about programming. Far from marketing himself as producing bug-free code, he has published articles entirely devoted to the history of bugs found in his software. (As for the bits that turn TeX into LaTeX, no one is making a career out of claiming that they are bug free -- for the simple reason that no one thinks they are.)
- roel_v 15y ago
  Of course not, it's hyperbole to illustrate the point. In the specific cases of Qmail and TeX, the 'bug free' aspect of it however is overblown and a marketing gimmick. It's not that hard (given enough time) to make something bug free, it's a whole different thing when the software needs to evolve at the same time to meet the (changing and expanding) requirements of actual users.
  - RBerenguel 15y ago
    TeX wasn't born in a night and suddenly appear in binary form. Knuth worked a hell lot to make it clean, make it work and make it fast. At least, for when he wrote it. Go and read The TeXbook
  - Joeri 15y ago
    Are you implying that qmail and tex don't have actual users? The point those packages make is that some problems can have a solution that lasts years or decades instead of mere months.
    - roel_v 15y ago
      How many people are using just TeX, and how many just qmail in production systems (i.e., not on their local workstation)? Very few.
  - EdiX 15y ago
    Actually, the reason for not evolving/rewriting TeX is so that old documents can be typeset and produce the same results. I find that an appealing goal.

by roel_v 15y ago

gjm11 15y ago

You think Donald Knuth has made a career for himself out of being able to right 'bug free code'? Really? He's made a career for himself out of being an extremely creative computer scientist and writing outstandingly scholarly books about programming. Far from marketing himself as producing bug-free code, he has published articles entirely devoted to the history of bugs found in his software. (As for the bits that turn TeX into LaTeX, no one is making a career out of claiming that they are bug free -- for the simple reason that no one thinks they are.)

roel_v 15y ago
Of course not, it's hyperbole to illustrate the point. In the specific cases of Qmail and TeX, the 'bug free' aspect of it however is overblown and a marketing gimmick. It's not that hard (given enough time) to make something bug free, it's a whole different thing when the software needs to evolve at the same time to meet the (changing and expanding) requirements of actual users.
- RBerenguel 15y ago
  TeX wasn't born in a night and suddenly appear in binary form. Knuth worked a hell lot to make it clean, make it work and make it fast. At least, for when he wrote it. Go and read The TeXbook
- Joeri 15y ago
  Are you implying that qmail and tex don't have actual users? The point those packages make is that some problems can have a solution that lasts years or decades instead of mere months.
  - roel_v 15y ago
    How many people are using just TeX, and how many just qmail in production systems (i.e., not on their local workstation)? Very few.
- EdiX 15y ago
  Actually, the reason for not evolving/rewriting TeX is so that old documents can be typeset and produce the same results. I find that an appealing goal.