OT: Bug versus Feature

Jourin · #1 February 7th, 2002, 09:04 PM

I am not saying that MM cheated me, and I really do not want to debate whether drones have a bug or not. I was trying to define the difference between a bug and a feature. I was trying to educate people so they would not make false or inflammatory statements, nor assume that I was making false or inflammatory statements.

I am an application and processes designer. Although I started as a program writer and work closely with them, I no longer actually write the code. I am like an architect who designs the house that the builders build, or in this case an application or process that the coders code.

If I design something that is programmed and coded perfectly, but the result has a negative impact on the process, then I have designed a bug into the system. Just because the program was coded perfectly per the design doesn't mean the program doesn't have a bug.

If I design a house with a grand cathedral ceiling, that is built exactly to specifications but the result is undo stress upon a weight bearing wall that makes the ceiling unstable; is the house not defective? Does the house not have a "bug?"

The problems with most software applications and computer games are all design related. The application or the game has a bug because of poor design not because it was coded poorly.

The statement that a bug can not exist if the program was coded per design is false, invalid, and incorrect. A bug is a problem whether it is caused by poor coding or poor design. In fact, most bugs are caused by poor design which is why they are so hard to find.

If you don't accept this definition that is your choice, but then you are letting all the designers off the hook and do not complain when you receive poor quality product. I am in no way implying that SEIV is poor quality.

The only time I was not polite was in replying to what I perceived was a flame attack.

geoschmo · #2 February 7th, 2002, 10:21 PM

Jourin,

You can attempt to change the perception if you wish, but you did accuse MM of cheating you when you stated that you had paid for apple pie and received apples instead. How else could that possibly be taken? And most reasonable people would have taken that as an impolite remark. And it was the reason for your being warned, not because of your opinion about the facts of the discussion.

Your analogy of the house is flawed. SEIV gold is not unusable because drones can't "move to". You are simply wanting them to do something they were not intended to do. It really is as simple as that no matter how hard you try to change the terms of the debate.

This is not a result of poor coding. It was a concious and direct decision on the part of the programmer. Given enough input from the customers, MM may infact decide to modify drones to allow them to "move to". We will just have to wait and see.

Things such as the fighter stack bug, and the counter intel bug were bugs. They were a result of mistakes in coding, or the result of unintended consequences.

Drones only fit into that Category if one accepts your definition of the word "drone", which requires by nature that they be usable in those ways. That is circular logic. You cannot prove anything that way.

Geoschmo

[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

PvK · #3 February 8th, 2002, 12:21 AM

Ya, I think Jourin means "design flaw", not what most would call a "bug." Trying to stretch the term "bug" to include flaws "by design" is likely to just cause confusion.

PvK

Mephisto · #4 February 8th, 2002, 12:33 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Jourin:
The only time I was not polite was in replying to what I perceived was a flame attack.

I don't know if you took my post as a flame attack. If so, I would like to apologize. I never intended to flame you. I'm sorry, if I offended you.

The whole "bug" things resolves around which persons view on the working mechanism counts. You say, it is yours/the customers, I would say in the first place the view of the programmer/designer. Of course it would be wise of the programmer to unify his view with the view of the customer...

dmm · #5 February 8th, 2002, 01:08 AM

This is a bit off-topic for this topic, but actually gets back to the original topic, so here goes:
Who else besides Jourin and his two nephews would dearly love to see drones have the "move to" order (at least optionally, either through a checkbox or a mod)?

It has my vote, so that makes 4 of us.

(And it wouldn't be hard for Aaron to do, now that he's got drones.)

Jourin · #6 February 8th, 2002, 01:20 AM

I work with internal customers and they call anything that doesn't work whether it is a design flaw or poor coding as a bug. If the program or application does not work as expected then it has a bug.

I can never tell my customers that the problem is technically not a bug it is a design flaw. I would rightfully get my butt chewed.

Comments like "bugs can not be caused by poor design" or "its a feature not a bug" did get me upset. I took those comments as resistance to the idea of drones having recon capability and wondered why all the hostility to the idea. I then felt that my idea of using drones for recon was being attacked and that any criticism of SEIV was taboo.

I think I was wrong, but as some of my Posts were interpreted incorrectly, I may have interpreted other Posts incorrectly.

[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: Jourin ]

geoschmo · #7 February 8th, 2002, 01:35 AM

quote:
Originally posted by dmm:
This is a bit off-topic for this topic, but actually gets back to the original topic, so here goes:
Who else besides Jourin and his two nephews would dearly love to see drones have the "move to" order (at least optionally, either through a checkbox or a mod)?

It has my vote, so that makes 4 of us.

I would like to see it added.