Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic
 
PerlMonks  

Re^11: regexp class (no bugs)

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Sep 04, 2011 at 01:45 UTC ( #924033=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^10: regexp class (no bugs)
in thread re: regexp class

I guess if the requirement is to multiply two numbers $x, and $y, $x + $y isn't a bug, it's merely incomplete

No. And you know it. That's another "silly extremes" example. It's just an attempt to try and "win an argument", rather than further a technical discussion.

A photo editor that has a red-eye feature that turns all eyes red, has a bug.

But if it doesn't have a sepia filter, it doesn't have a bug, it just doesn't support that feature.

The difference is clear and easily understood.


Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.


Comment on Re^11: regexp class (no bugs)
Re^12: regexp class (no bugs)
by JavaFan (Canon) on Sep 04, 2011 at 02:25 UTC
    Bullshit.

    Please read the thread again. And remember who it was who brought up the logical extreme of having no code at all. You wanted to take "golfed code" to an extreme. But golfed code always has a task to perform - if it doesn't perform that task, it's not correct. A program with no code, does not perform the given task. A photo editor that doesn't do anything isn't a bugfree photo editor that's missing a feature.

      Please read the thread again. And remember who it was who brought up the logical extreme of having no code at all.

      I just did read it again. And here's how the subject came up. I said:"You missed the ultimate silly extreme.".

      That was sarcasm, that if you are going to go to silly extremes, you could have gone further.

      A photo editor that doesn't do anything ...

      No code isn't a photo editor. It isn't anything. As I already said, it isn't an "it" at all. There is no spec. No missing features. And no bugs.

      To bring this back to the subject, golfed code is a "silly extremes" argument to the preposition that less code means less bugs.


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
        if you are going to go to silly extremes, you could have gone further.
        No, you could not go further.

        Golfed code in no way implies reducing functionality. It should still do the same as the original code. It should still pass the test suite.

        That's obviously not true when you reduce your program to no code at all.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://924033]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-11-29 01:21 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My preferred Perl binaries come from:














    Results (200 votes), past polls