3 ms·
The nice takeaway from it is that the code you wrote works perfectly well for a large number of people and is obviously stable and bug-free enough for them to u
by nicholassmith 14y ago
The nice takeaway from it is that the code you wrote works perfectly well for a large number of people and is obviously stable and bug-free enough for them to use it for their businesses. Code isn't about hammering out new features or moving fast and breaking things.
And if it's written in Perl looking at the source code again might break it so I wouldn't do that.
- webreac 14y agoIs Perl a quantic programming language ?
- yichi 14y agoWell, how else do you think http://www.bennylingbling.com/tag/schrodingers-bug/ http://www.bennylingbling.com/tag/schrodingers-bug/ originated
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- yogsototh 14y agoMy best example is a Perl bug I corrected. It occurred only 27 second by year! Just to think about the probability to detect it knowing the code is used only about twice a week.
- sedev 14y agoI'll bite: how did that happen?
- yogsototh 14y agoI don't remember all details. My co-workers searched to understand the bug and he discovered that changing the creation date for just some second made the bug disappear. I then discovered he called the function with a bad argument. Strangely using an integer instead of a time object (I am not sure about that but you get the idea) will render the exact same result most of the time. I corrected the bug by using the right function call. I then tried a brute force search to discover for how many time the bug occurs. And if remember well there were two close period of a few second each during wich the function bad called render a different result. It was something like 17 second and 3 minutes later another 10 second. I believe I simply tried for the current year. I might have tweeted about it some years ago.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mirkules 14y agoMy professor's favorite joke: Java: Write once, run anywhere Perl: Write once, run away