|
in reply to Re^7: regexp class (no bugs)
in thread re: regexp class
So, if you send an empty file to your next client, and he responds with "this program actually doesn't do as we agreed on", you charge him because he wants additional features? |
Re^9: regexp class (no bugs)
by tye (Sage) on Sep 04, 2011 at 00:09 UTC
|
No, of course it would not be an "additional feature" request. It would be an original feature request. "This code doesn't have feature $X" is not the same as "This code is buggy". Failing to implement required features makes the code incomplete. It doesn't mean the code contains any bugs.
Code being bug-free obviously does not mean that there are no features that it leaves unsatisfied.
But the empty program successfully implements the following important features:
- Compiles without errors
- Validates all required inputs
- Reproduces itself
- Does not allow any SQL injection attacks
- Produces all output in UTF-16
- Produces all output in 7-bit ASCII
- Produces all output in Big5
- Logs detailed error reports if any operation it attempts fails
- Exits immediately if used as part of any illegal or immoral activity
- All output is automatically translated into the viewer's native language, even if there are multiple simultaneous viewers
- All network communication is encrypted so that not only can the NSA never decrypt a single byte of it, they can't even detect it
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Failing to implement required features makes the code incomplete. It doesn't mean the code contains any bugs.
That's an utterly weird definition of not having bugs.
Pray tell me, how do you define a bug? I guess if the requirement is to multiply two numbers $x, and $y, $x + $y isn't a bug, it's merely incomplete (it just doesn't do the right thing yet for inputs other than (0, 0) or (2, 2)).
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
I guess if the requirement is to multiply two numbers $x, and $y, $x + $y isn't a bug, it's merely incomplete
No. And you know it. That's another "silly extremes" example. It's just an attempt to try and "win an argument", rather than further a technical discussion.
A photo editor that has a red-eye feature that turns all eyes red, has a bug.
But if it doesn't have a sepia filter, it doesn't have a bug, it just doesn't support that feature.
The difference is clear and easily understood.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
| |
|
Failing to implement required features makes the code incomplete. It doesn't mean the code contains any bugs.
That's an utterly weird definition of not having bugs.
Ah, bug religion. Good stuff. I also come from the school of "required features are enhancements, not bugs." Each feature is an enhancement of "nothing."
Each product release will incorporate required new features, existing feature enhancements, and existing feature bugfixes. If the required features and enhancements are not done, the release is not complete.
An important issue here is that a product can be released, whether its "dev complete" or not. Now whether those unimplemented features become "bugs" or not really depends on the documentation and marketing. It's a bug for a customer if the docs say a feature exists when it doesn't. Whether its treated as a functional bug or a documentation bug though... well that's a business decision.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with JavaFan on this one. If a product is alleged to have feature X and it doesn't, that's a bug. But I think there is some grey area, due to the vagueness of "alleged". On one hand, if the feature set was defined up front, based on specifications from a "customer", and the delivered product doesn't implement one of those features, that's a bug. OTOH, if it's some kind of commercial product, where feature sets are really driven by internal processes, then a "not implemented yet" feature isn't much of a bug. Of course, the term "bug" itself is vague; every stakeholder has a different idea of what "bug" means. To the coder, a bug might only mean code which contains a flaw. To project management, a bug is a certain kind of record in the tracking system. To a customer, a bug is any variance between the spec and the delivered implementation. And so on. Whose opinion matters most?
Also, under test-driven development, missing features are usually actual bugs, by just about any definition. This is particularly true if the "not done yet" feature is depended upon by other parts of the system.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies .
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
