Bad advice on confirming the existence of bugs.
mikesamuel at gmail.com
Thu Aug 4 17:50:11 UTC 2016
On Aug 4, 2016 11:57 AM, "Mark S. Miller" <erights at google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Alex Vincent <ajvincent at gmail.com>
>> "The first step in confirming there is a bug in someone else's work is
confirming there are no bugs in your own."
>> -- Alexander J. Vincent, June 30, 2001
> I rarely comment on these incidental aphorisms, but this one is so wrong
that it is worth pointing out. You can confirm the existence of many bugs
> * demonstration via failing test case,
> * finding the bug,
> * having a plausible explanation for why it is incorrect,
> * writing a fix with a plausible explanation for why it fixes the
> * demonstrating that the fix repairs the demonstrated test case.
> However hard this is, it is vastly easier than confirming that there are
no bugs in your own code.
The latter requires a closed definition of "bug," but the former can be
done using an open definition.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss