Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder2.hal-mli.net!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe20.iad.POSTED!8ad76e89!not-for-mail From: Arved Sandstrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: please coin a term for a lower order bug References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 69 Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsgroups-download.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:17:49 UTC Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:17:48 -0400 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:11192 On 12-01-10 08:54 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 1/10/2012 5:45 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> On 12-01-09 10:26 PM, Eric Sosman wrote: >>> On 1/9/2012 5:02 PM, 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? >>> >>> Call them "bugs." Sub-classification as "venial bugs" and >>> "mortal bugs" just reveals the classifier's lack of imagination. >>> >> True. But until this slow or confusing behaviour violated a business or >> technical requirement it's no bug at all. After all, what is "slow"? And >> "confusing" to who? > > The fact that the program is being called slow and confusing > demonstrates that it is neither "fast enough" nor "clear enough." > If the program were satisfactory, nobody would be complaining -- > but they are complaining, ergo the program does not meet expectations. Who's "they"? I run into this situation often enough, particularly with respect to application performance. 9 times out of 10 the people who complain about slowness haven't measured the current performance, haven't any baseline data for the performance of any previous versions, and there are zero business/technical requirements that define target performance. In the absence of all that the complaint is entirely subjective, and there is no defect. I'd be surprised if _you_ set out to "improve" performance without a specified, agreed target at a minimum. As for "confusing", if it's a trained user of the program who's complaining, for some common-sense value of "trained", then maybe I'll take the complaint seriously. "Trained" to me means that the program _documentation_ is adequate or better, that the user is familiar with it, and that if proper operation of the program also requires other knowledge (like that of business processes, or of some subject, or of some professional occupation) that the user possesses that knowledge. I've seen way too many people complain that something is "confusing" about an application where they lack any of these prerequisites. I'm sorry, but they can go suck eggs until they do their bit first. In a more active way you take care of "confusing" by getting user interfaces (command line, graphical etc) and use cases and storylines out in front of the user community as soon as possible. This should happen in requirements at the latest. That's where the prospective users have their opportunity to eliminate the "confusing" bits. > Note that some bugs are addressed by means other than changing > the code. We might, for example, relabel the program as "Only for > use on big honkin' screamerboxen" or "Not for use by addlepated > nitwits." That is, sometimes the failure to fulfill expectations > is remedied by better control of the expectations. Nonetheless, it's > a bug until and unless *something* is done. I'll agree that it could be viewed as a requirements defect, sure. OTOH, if the business signed off on the requirements documents, it's really a change request. > (The software purveyors' pusillanimous retreat behing "Not > warrantied for any particular use whatsoever" is beneath contempt.) > I agree. But I don't think we're talking about that here. I know I'm not. AHS -- ...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government... -- Thomas Jefferson, 1789