3 ms·
I believe you're 100% wrong. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of bugs in the old code. Just because they haven't been found yet doesn't mean they're
by UltraViolence 4y ago
I believe you're 100% wrong. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of bugs in the old code. Just because they haven't been found yet doesn't mean they're not there.
If a handful of developers at SerenityOS can write a web browser (including Javascript and CSS support) from scratch in a year or so why can't Mozilla rewrite the FireFox engine in Rust?
- pittmajp 4y agoHow many bugs should a software project have? You can’t justify a rewrite of working code because there might be bugs.
- UltraViolence 4y agoMemory bugs! I mean mean memory bugs. Every project should have exactly zero (0) memory bugs. That's nigh impossible to achieve with large codebases written in C/C++ or some other unsafe language. Chromium and FireFox are still busily fixing memory bugs twenty years after the code was written. It's a God-awful mess!
- lolinder 4y ago> There are probably hundreds if not thousands of bugs in the old code. Just because they haven't been found yet doesn't mean they're not there. Most definitely! But how many bugs were in the code that are no longer there? And how does the relative severity compare between new bugs and old bugs? When considering a rewrite, the question isn't whether there are latent bugs, the question is whether fixing those bugs is worth the regressions that will likely be introduced (not to mention the cost).