Posted by dorayme on 04/26/07 21:26

In article <slrnf30k2j.5hq.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:

> On 2007-04-26, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <f0o39r$5hb$1@aioe.org>,
> > Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But of course bugs don't have to follow any logic...
> >
> > This is a tricky question. At the level of computer programming
> > and unexpected side effects on the machine, there is very likely
> > a logic in the sense of a deterministic algorithm: sets of
> > circumstances, which if repeated, will trigger the effect. The
> > bug label is due to its unwanted effect and often to its hidden
> > causal paths.
> >
> > It is not out of the question that some things happen as
> > surprising unintended effects in other than this algorithmic way,
> > as an instability that is sensitive to all sorts of dynamical
> > processes, so special appearing, that it falls outside the usual
> > deterministic causal chains that earthlings understand.
>
> That's true, but the distinction is usually between a bug and a
> non-conformance. IE taking width to mean outer margin width (or whatever
> it does take it to mean) is often called a bug even though it's
> obviously intentional. There is still some logic to it, it's just not
> what the spec says.
>
> Usually you just call it a bug if it's something that ought to get
> fixed, whether it's a correct implementation of the wrong thing or a
> wrong attempt at the right thing.

I am sure you are generally right as a description of common
speech.

The distinction that I was pointing out would then be applied to
within the class of bugs. At least the ones that do follow a
known logic can be dealt with if enough effort is assigned. Those
that do not follow a known logic can be split into a further two
types. One, those that do follow a logic but not a known one.
Two, those that don't follow a logic that can ever be learned in
an individual case.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]