On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 10:39:56PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote: > > > And yet in the real world, it's the kind that gets left unfixed, while > > the latter kind does not. Resulting in a lot of code that crashes and > > burns for things that really didn't matter. I'd rather have a daemon > > silently ignore an error than die for a non-error. > > I would be ROTFL if you were not a Debian developer (how the hell was it > possible in the first place?). > > Any sane programmer knows that silent errors are the worst thing they > can face, because you don't know precisely when they happen (by > definition, since they are silent), but the program is malfunctioning, > or breaks other software while it is very difficult to find the cause; > because it is indirect; because the program didn't abort when the error > took place; because you are unable to reproduce the bug. > > Go get a "Programming for dummies" book or something like that and stop > wasting everyone's time. Any experienced programmer knows that it is better to not crash than to crash. You really shouldn't be using IDG's "for dummies" series, it's not very good. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature