Re^11: regexp class (no bugs)

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.

--Dave

Comment on Re^11: regexp class (no bugs)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^12: regexp class (no bugs) by JavaFan (Canon) on Sep 06, 2011 at 20:06 UTC
That's all fine and such, but the thread started from the assumption the OP coworker actually have a task to accomplish. Not doing said task isn't "a feature not implemented yet". An important issue here is that a product can be released "here"? In which sense? The OP is teaching his coworkers regular expressions as tools. To be used to generate the product to be delivered. It's on those tools the OP claimed "less code is less bugs" - to which I objected. Now whether those unimplemented features become "bugs" or not really depends on the documentation and marketing. Really? That's all? Djees, I wish I had know that years ago. All those time I've been working from specifications and customer wishes - and now you're telling me they don't matter? If I just don't document what I haven't implemented (or haven't implemented correctly), my delivered product doesn't have bugs! Can I keep the test suite, even if it fails? So, I guess with the following commands you could remove all the bugs in Perl at once: `$ git clone ssh://perl5.git.perl.org/gitroot/perl $ git rm pod/* $ echo "Perl is bugfree" > README $ git commit -m "Removed all bugs from Perl" -a $ git push origin blead` [download] Quick, put in a grant proposal for the perl5 maintenance fund before Nick and Dave do it the hard way!	[reply] [d/l]
Re^13: regexp class (no bugs) by armstd (Friar) on Sep 06, 2011 at 23:23 UTC
A hammer is not a screwdriver. Is a hammer buggy or incomplete if it can't drive screws? No. Does it satisfy the requirement for a screwdriver? No. Is it a problem if you call a hammer a screwdriver and expect it to drive screws? Yes, for you. Not so much for the customer that had a bunch of nails and called them screws though. It happens. It has happened. It will continue to happen. Customers will be delighted by the products they never asked for, customers will be disappointed by the products they asked for and never got. Whatever. That's business, and I'm an engineer. Whether that's good for business... meh. Seriously, have you seen the Stanley FatMax Xtreme Fubar? I surely never specified that, but I still ended up with it in my toolbox. Sweeeet. http://www.stanleytools.com/catalog_images/mid_res/55-099_mid_res.jpg --Dave	[reply]


We don't bite newbies here... much
	PerlMonks