Open Source Programmers Stink At Error Handling

Mark Cappel writes: "LinuxWorld columnist Nick Petreley has a few choice words for for the open source community in 'Open source programmers stink at error handling'. Do you think commercial software handles errors better?"

Comments

Maybe people expect too much from software.

[Carnage4Life]

One of my friends counters arguments about software being too sloppy with the point that there is practically no other field where a product is designed to be used on such a varying degree of ways and expected to still be robust. For instance, let's use a car as an analogy to your complaints

The key CD is now scratched which hangs the authenticator forced a quite ungraceful reboot and corrupted my hard drive. (Perhaps a $150 upgrade will help. I'll never know.)

how is a programmer expected to deal with the CD being scratched? Does your car still work if the transmission is damaged or half the engine has been riddled with bullet holes?

The last time I used Word a drive filled during a save operation and left me with just a mutilated copy of the original file. (I will not use it again.)

Again, a very unexpected and unnatural scenario. How well do cars function when they run out of fuel?

The most amazing part is that this state of affairs doesn't surprise me. If my refrigerator intermittently defrosted and melted icecream all over the kitchen I'd be ticked. If my car mysteriously dies at stop signs I get it fixed.

But how well would your refrigerator react if you treated it shoddily such as by leaving it outdoors intermuitently or diconnecting and reconnecting the power several times a day?

Now, I'm not trying to excuse sloppy software development but the fact of the matter is that software is constantly expected to work perfectly under situations completely outside its specifications yet we don't expect this from other items or appliances that we use.

Re:you didn't read the article

[egomaniac]

News flash: Technology pundit seemingly insults open source, Slashdot up in arms. None of them actually read the article. Story at 11.

The article does not say "open source doesn't handle errors as well as closed source". What the article does say is "like most commercial software developers, many open source programmers are just plain lazy about proper error handling. But we're supposed to be better than that...".

I don't see a problem with this statement. The fact is, most open-source software sucks donkey balls. Petreley is merely saying it's time to put your money where your mouth is -- if you want open source to be considered better than closed source software, it better stop being so danged flaky.