Michael Starberg wrote:
- If it compiles, it works.
- If it compiles, it's correct.
Of couse. What else could be wrong?
- If it runs, it doesn't have any bugs.
- If it doesn't have any immediately obvious bugs, it's perfect.
- If a bug doesn't show, it doesn't exist.
- If it seems to work, it works.
Natually. Either it runs or it doesn't, right?
- Testing takes only a short while.
Well, it compiles, and it runs. What more do you need?
Testing phase complete. Pack it and ship it.
- Bug-fixes don't need to be tested.
Why would they? I clearly see now how the code could be wrong, but now
it's fixed.
- It's OK to crash on bad input.
- It's OK to give incorrect output on bad input.
GIGO - garbage in garbage out. Why would I be responsible for the errors
of the idiots running the program?
(They probably didn't need those files anyway...)
- Undocumented features are fun and useful.
Naturally. Evolution is largely due to random mutation. Who doesn't want
the program to evolve?
- Surprised users are happy users.
And it keeps them alert, so that they don't make more stupid input errors.
;)
--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com