Re^3: regexp class

in reply to Re^2: regexp class
in thread re: regexp class

The logical extreme of this is that golfed code contains the fewest bugs.

You missed the ultimate silly extreme. No code means no bugs. Try and disprove that :)

Taking good ideas to silly extremes does not disprove them as good ideas.

For a huge proportion of the population -- of almost anywhere -- eating less is a good idea. That starving yourself causes death does not disprove that.

I think that "less code means less bugs" is a nice catchphrase, but that noone has actually proven this.

Actually, they have. Over and over.

When FORTRAN and COBOL took over from assembler, it was clearly demonstrated that more code was written more quickly with considerably less bugs.

And given equivalent skills and testing regimes, coding in Perl will result in less bugs than writing in C.

And if the anecdotal evidence isn't self-evident enough for you, I'll try and dig up references to some of the research I was party to back in the '80s. Though I'm not sure I'll be able to access it.

In the mean time, try looking in the Haskell world. It's one of their mantras and they usually back their stuff up with research.

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.

Comment on Re^3: regexp class

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: regexp class by JavaFan (Canon) on Sep 03, 2011 at 07:48 UTC
You missed the ultimate silly extreme. No code means no bugs. Try and disprove that That's trivial to disprove. Most code is intended to do something. If it doesn't do what is intended to be done, it isn't correct. No code means nothing is done.	[reply]
Re^5: regexp class by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Sep 03, 2011 at 08:08 UTC
trivial to disprove.... If it doesn't do ... Sorry, but your disproof has bugs. What "it". If there is no code, there is no "it". The absence of functionality is not a bug. In many cases, it is the most pragmatic, correct solution. 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]
Re^5: regexp class by ww (Archbishop) on Sep 03, 2011 at 09:41 UTC
Please show me the bugs in my code above.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: regexp class by wfsp (Abbot) on Sep 04, 2011 at 11:17 UTC
If your code crashed in a forest and no one was around to hear it, would it make a sound?	[reply]
Re^7: regexp class by pvaldes (Chaplain) on Sep 04, 2011 at 11:44 UTC
Re^6: regexp class by JavaFan (Canon) on Sep 03, 2011 at 11:37 UTC
Without some sort of specification what code needs to do, it's never possible to point out bugs. Some me your specification, and I'll show you the bugs (unless the specification is "do nothing").	[reply]
Re^7: regexp class (no bugs) by tye (Sage) on Sep 03, 2011 at 15:52 UTC
Re^8: regexp class (no bugs) by JavaFan (Canon) on Sep 03, 2011 at 18:08 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here

In Section Meditations