On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 09:46:47 UTC, Don wrote:
"There has been no error reported in TeX since 1994 or 1995"
-- Knuth, 2002.
There were 7 bugs in TeX reported between 1982 and 1995.
Tex has a lot more than 70 lines of code :-)
Bugs in code don't always live on one line per bug; The
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 04:56:11 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:44:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
It's been quoted that for every 10 lines of code there's a bug.
It is said a lot. I'd like to see hard data on that one. I'd
bet that it greatly vary from one prog
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 07:57:38 UTC, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 07:33:22 UTC, eles wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 06:22:55 UTC, Philippe Sigaud
wrote:
Plenty of stuff that simplifies a whole lot of stuff. D is
indeed the language I always wanted :)
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 07:33:22 UTC, eles wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 06:22:55 UTC, Philippe Sigaud
wrote:
With D, we aim for one bug every 14 lines of code :)
Add to that the fact that programs in D tend to be shorter than
their C or even C++ equivalents!
Less boiler
On 2013-16-23 07:01, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:56 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:44:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
It's been quoted that for every 10 lines of code there's a bug.
It is said a lot. I'd like to see hard data on that one. I'd be
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 06:22:55 UTC, Philippe Sigaud
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:56 AM, deadalnix
wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:44:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow
With D, we aim for one bug every 14 lines of code :)
Add to that the fact that programs in D tend to be shorter t
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:56 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:44:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
>>
>> It's been quoted that for every 10 lines of code there's a bug.
>
>
> It is said a lot. I'd like to see hard data on that one. I'd bet that it
> greatly vary from one progra
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:44:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
It's been quoted that for every 10 lines of code there's a bug.
It is said a lot. I'd like to see hard data on that one. I'd bet
that it greatly vary from one programmer to another, and probably
from one language to another.
On 1/22/2013 6:44 AM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
It's been quoted that for every 10 lines of code there's a bug.
I've been doing some refactoring in dmd now and then. Every time I do, the
process exposes latent bugs. On the one hand, that's discouraging, on the other
hand, I think it shows the va
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 17:10:35 UTC, Thiez wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 16:31:20 UTC, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
I really wouldn't want to have to use BigInt for everything
that can't overflow and then check to make sure I can fit it
in my smaller variables afterwards along with the
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 16:31:20 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
I really wouldn't want to have to use BigInt for everything
that can't overflow and then check to make sure I can fit it in
my smaller variables afterwards along with the extra move. I
wouldn't want to use BigInts everywhere, and
Not just Java. According to Wikipedia Debian 5 has over 300
million lines of code.
It also consists of over 2 packages. It is not one program.
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 15:11:41 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Era Scarecrow:
Are you going to check after every little + that you didn't
have an overflow?
In debug mode that's the job of a modern well designed
language, just like checking an index is inside the bounds of
an array every tim
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 15:26:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:59:48 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:44:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
It's been quoted that for every 10 lines of code there's a
bug. There are programs with tens of tho
On 2013-01-22, 15:59, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:44:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
It's been quoted that for every 10 lines of code there's a bug. There
are programs with tens of thousands of lines of code, so finding every
bug is probably impossible for large pro
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:59:48 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:44:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
I'd say anything under 100kloc is a small program.
100kloc-1mloc medium, and >1mloc large.
That means (at least) 100k bugs. Happy fixing!
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:59:48 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:44:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
It's been quoted that for every 10 lines of code there's a
bug. There are programs with tens of thousands of lines of
code, so finding every bug is probably impo
Era Scarecrow:
Are you going to check after every little + that you
didn't have an overflow?
In debug mode that's the job of a modern well designed language,
just like checking an index is inside the bounds of an array
every time you perform an array access.
Bye,
bearophile
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 14:44:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
It's been quoted that for every 10 lines of code there's a bug.
There are programs with tens of thousands of lines of code, so
finding every bug is probably impossible for large programs
(above 1000 lines).
I love how >1kloc is
On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 13:54:08 UTC, eles wrote:
The text opens with...:
"We like it when people always want more! Otherwise, we'd be
out of the upgrade business. Sometimes, people ask me what I
will do when the compiler is done. Done? No software program
that is selling is ever done
Hi everybody,
I was just reading this:
http://www.laputan.org/metamorphosis/metamorphosis.html#SoftwareTectonics
(a thing about software architectures).
The text opens with...:
"We like it when people always want more! Otherwise, we'd be out
of the upgrade business. Sometimes, people ask me
21 matches
Mail list logo
