Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Epic Fail Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:46:16 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <7xfvlrfkjv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <917ac327-53fc-4a88-9966-89677c338f12@googlegroups.com> <7x38hqmqjz.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7x8urixbtj.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xwqf04ffx.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:29462 On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:32:45 -0400, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Yes, the reason why I like to do such a lot of things myself is > that building on other people's code means the stuff is broken. How do you ensure that your replacement code isn't just as broken as you perceive theirs to be? I.e., what's to prevent others from concluding the same thing as you when they look at your code? ... > However, the conclusion of this article is that the low-level stuff > gets enough pressure to work, while the high-level stuff doesn't. Bugs can exist in code for a long, long time before being noticed. The more thoroughly tested the code, the less likely they will exist. The more frequently the code is used, the more likely they will be found. Sometimes they're critical, sometimes they're not. Does it make sense to invest time and money fixing trivial bugs? Many business managers simply decide it's not worth the cost to fix. Rod Pemberton