Laws on Programming (Was: Re: [ Re: UNIX- Grad-daddy of all modern operating systems?])

[Matt Graham]

On Monday 02 July 2007 17:21, after a long battle with technology, 
Darrin Chandler wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:48:52PM -0700, Alan Dayley wrote:
>> Carlos Macedo Gomes wrote:
>>> What programmers like to call bugs are defects - defects in
>>> workmanship - defects in quality.
>> Why do you feel it is important that defects are not called bugs?
> When defects are serious and/or numerous enough to plague the entire
> industry it's a different matter. The difference between a "bug" and
> a "defect" is that bugs happen. Bugs "get into" the software. Defects
> are caused by people. They are mistakes. Someone causes a defect. So
> to continue calling them bugs is to perpetuate a mindset that accepts
> them as something we just have to live with.

I'd guess the jargon term is too entrenched to be changed now.  You can 
try, but it'll probably end up like "GNU/Linux"--not many people will 
follow your lead.[0]

I'd also say that bugs are prevalent because users want new software 
Right Now and they want it with More Features.  There are ways to write 
bug-free code (formally proving every line is correct, for one).  
However, managers would rather pay 0.5X for a program that has 10 bugs 
and is delivered in 6 months than 5.0X for a program that has 0 bugs 
and is delivered in 3 years.  This is the Wal-Mart Principle ("Who 
cares if it breaks in 6 months?  It was cheap!") at work.

(The process of writing code should be called "bugging".)

[0] You don't change the way people think by changing what they say.  
You change the way people think with HEADLESS CHARRED BODIES FLYING 
THROUGH THE AIR!  BLOOD!  FLAMES!  --Alastair J. R. Young

-- 
   I find that having a pint or two is a good problem-solving technique.
   Especially if it's vodka rather than beer.
      --Peter Corlett in ASR
There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see