5 ms·

Wrong. A more complex program has more possible origins for the bug. So you need to make more hypothesises to check and verify the bug. Time and intelligence ar

Wrong. A more complex program has more possible origins for the bug. So you need to make more hypothesises to check and verify the bug. Time and intelligence are both a factor here. Sometimes one more than the other. Clearly you don't think bugs are all solved in seconds and limited only based off of intelligence. A harder bug often needs more time to solve. This is common sense. You're just sinking with the ship now.

Retric 3y ago
> A more complex program has more possible origins for the bug. So you need to make more hypothesises to check and verify the bug. This isn’t a discussion about all bugs but the class of bugs created from dealing with clever code. Very difficult bugs may be fairly quick to solve in comparison to simple bugs that require some long process to replicate. Time to solve really doesn’t map well to difficulty. >Clearly you don't think bugs are all solved in seconds and limited only based off of intelligence. False, you clearly missed me stating it intelligence was “one” limitation not the only limitation. Poor tooling can be a massive pain among many other things. Again though this is talking about debugging a very specific kind of unnecessarily complex code.
- corethree 3y ago
  >This isn’t a discussion about all bugs but the class of bugs created from dealing with clever code. Very difficult bugs may be fairly quick to solve in comparison to simple bugs that require some long process to replicate. Time to solve really doesn’t map well to difficulty. It does. A bug solved in seconds is usually considered less difficult than one solved in weeks. It maps easily. >False, you clearly missed me stating it intelligence was “one” limitation not the only limitation. Poor tooling can be a massive pain among many other things. Again though this is talking about debugging a very specific kind of unnecessarily complex code. The quote was suggesting absolutism one limitation. By showing the existence of an equivalency I've shown the quote is not absolute. Therefore the quote is not intelligent. Therefore your statement is false and nonsensical.
  - Retric 3y ago
    > It does. A bug solved in seconds is usually considered less difficult than one solved in weeks. It maps easily. Luck wildly impacts how long ‘difficult’ problems take to solve. I’ve solved bugs in seconds someone literally spent weeks and asked multiple people to help them solve and I’ve had the same thing happen to me. Thus actual solve time and absolute difficulty are almost orthogonal. > The quote was suggesting absolutism one limitation. By showing the existence of an equivalency I've shown the quote is not absolute. Therefore the quote is not intelligent. Therefore your statement is false and nonsensical. Again no, it was saying one limitation becomes significant in a specific situation. Often these bugs may not actually take long to fix, but you’ll suffer when dealing with them. Even strait forward off by one errors can be annoying when you have to reason about really tricky bits of code. That feeling where you spend an hour staring at an IDE with absolutely no clue what’s going on sucks even if it doesn’t take that long to actually fix the issue.
    - corethree 3y ago
      >Thus actual solve time and absolute difficulty are almost orthogonal. No it just means luck is another factor. You have luck, intelligence and length of time. Time is correlated with possibility right? You can get lucky and guess the probability on the get go. Either way you introduced a third possibility here which goes further to illustrate that this quotation is inaccurate and not intelligent. >Again no, it was saying one limitation becomes significant in a specific situation. Often these bugs may not actually take long to fix, but you’ll suffer when dealing with them. Even strait forward off by one errors can be annoying when you have to reason about really tricky bits of code. False. You are absolutely wrong. The statement was made without qualification to a specific situation. Therefore it is made in the context of the universal situation meaning absolutist. Sinking with the ship again. >That feeling where you spend an hour staring at an IDE with absolutely no clue what’s going on sucks even if it doesn’t take that long to actually fix the issue. So? This doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the quotation is wrong. How you feel during debugging is off topic.
      - Retric 3y ago

Retric 3y ago

> A more complex program has more possible origins for the bug. So you need to make more hypothesises to check and verify the bug. This isn’t a discussion about all bugs but the class of bugs created from dealing with clever code. Very difficult bugs may be fairly quick to solve in comparison to simple bugs that require some long process to replicate. Time to solve really doesn’t map well to difficulty. >Clearly you don't think bugs are all solved in seconds and limited only based off of intelligence. False, you clearly missed me stating it intelligence was “one” limitation not the only limitation. Poor tooling can be a massive pain among many other things. Again though this is talking about debugging a very specific kind of unnecessarily complex code.

corethree 3y ago
>This isn’t a discussion about all bugs but the class of bugs created from dealing with clever code. Very difficult bugs may be fairly quick to solve in comparison to simple bugs that require some long process to replicate. Time to solve really doesn’t map well to difficulty. It does. A bug solved in seconds is usually considered less difficult than one solved in weeks. It maps easily. >False, you clearly missed me stating it intelligence was “one” limitation not the only limitation. Poor tooling can be a massive pain among many other things. Again though this is talking about debugging a very specific kind of unnecessarily complex code. The quote was suggesting absolutism one limitation. By showing the existence of an equivalency I've shown the quote is not absolute. Therefore the quote is not intelligent. Therefore your statement is false and nonsensical.
- Retric 3y ago
  > It does. A bug solved in seconds is usually considered less difficult than one solved in weeks. It maps easily. Luck wildly impacts how long ‘difficult’ problems take to solve. I’ve solved bugs in seconds someone literally spent weeks and asked multiple people to help them solve and I’ve had the same thing happen to me. Thus actual solve time and absolute difficulty are almost orthogonal. > The quote was suggesting absolutism one limitation. By showing the existence of an equivalency I've shown the quote is not absolute. Therefore the quote is not intelligent. Therefore your statement is false and nonsensical. Again no, it was saying one limitation becomes significant in a specific situation. Often these bugs may not actually take long to fix, but you’ll suffer when dealing with them. Even strait forward off by one errors can be annoying when you have to reason about really tricky bits of code. That feeling where you spend an hour staring at an IDE with absolutely no clue what’s going on sucks even if it doesn’t take that long to actually fix the issue.
  - corethree 3y ago
    >Thus actual solve time and absolute difficulty are almost orthogonal. No it just means luck is another factor. You have luck, intelligence and length of time. Time is correlated with possibility right? You can get lucky and guess the probability on the get go. Either way you introduced a third possibility here which goes further to illustrate that this quotation is inaccurate and not intelligent. >Again no, it was saying one limitation becomes significant in a specific situation. Often these bugs may not actually take long to fix, but you’ll suffer when dealing with them. Even strait forward off by one errors can be annoying when you have to reason about really tricky bits of code. False. You are absolutely wrong. The statement was made without qualification to a specific situation. Therefore it is made in the context of the universal situation meaning absolutist. Sinking with the ship again. >That feeling where you spend an hour staring at an IDE with absolutely no clue what’s going on sucks even if it doesn’t take that long to actually fix the issue. So? This doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the quotation is wrong. How you feel during debugging is off topic.
    - Retric 3y ago