Posted by Ben C on 04/27/07 07:17

On 2007-04-27, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <slrnf3283d.5hq.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-04-26, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > 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.
>>
>> Do you mean logic in the sense of something that the manifestation of
>> the bug follows? In other words, something related to reproducibility?
>
> Yes, that will do fine, reproducibility.
>
> My speculation was also that there could be some surprising and
> unwanted effects that are not in this class because they fall
> under some part of chaotic events in the partly understood
> technical sense that is discussed under Chaos Theory.

Certainly, especially when the bug is related to uninitialized memory or
unforseen concurrency between threads or processes.

[Back to original message]