Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!feeder.erje.net!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:18:53 -0600
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:18:53 +0000
From: bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110429 Fedora/2.0.14-1.fc13 SeaMonkey/2.0.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: please coin a term for a lower order bug
References: <fqomg7ltgtddv3one61ei9c33755duu9ec@4ax.com> <9f3jns8095wj.2ln3sbv2qk$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <9f3jns8095wj.2ln3sbv2qk$.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <-sOdnRTbLfbgn5HSnZ2dnUVZ8lKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 20
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-jzfymK7S+PwRUsDAY7WvAg7S0XtdD5FJglsBrBsNV1lfCP46+K+A7UcFYzFOY2LIE8/4UoYtJtND4T6!XR2ltAZa90FOXyjg0b4irg5qc8fQ3Z8+N+4dB9m+kcXbDsvoOAIaxieOj7QL9VjiGminshJGoZDx!eSbLLe2ve3mQSAXTuIrsgy94BQ==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2005
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:11159

Peter Duniho wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:02:33 -0800, Roedy Green wrote:
>
>> What would you call a flaw in a program that had no effect on the
>> results, but needlessly made the program slower or confusing?
>
> IMHO it's a mistake to classify such bugs as "lower order". Rather, they
> are simply a different subset of the broader classification of "bug":
>
>    * "correctness bug" -- affects the actual result
>    * "performance bug" -- affects the efficiency/speed of the code
>    * "maintenance bug" -- affects the readability of the code (makes it more
> confusing)
>
> I don't think there's any need for a whole new term. It's just a matter of
> applying the appropriate qualifier to the existing term of "bug".

+1, and nicely put.

  BugBear