Slashdot Mirror
Intuitive Bug-less Software?
Starlover writes "In the latest java.sun.com feature at Sun's Java site, Victoria Livschitz takes on some ideas of Jaron Lanier on how to make software less buggy. She makes a couple of interesting points. First, making software more 'intuitive' for developers will reduce bugs. Second, software should more closely simulate the real world, so we should be expanding the pure object-oriented paradigm to allow for a richer set of basic abstractions -- like processes and conditions. The simple division of structures into hierarchies and collections in software too simple for our needs according to Livschitz. She offers a set of ideas explaining how to get 'there' from here. Comments?"
Is bug spray.
First, making software more 'intuitive' for developers will reduce bugs
Feels right.
Writing bugless code is not a good idea, in my opinion, think about it: Debugging is the art of removing bugs, therefore programming is the art of adding bugs.
Writing bugless code would throw the universe upside down and could possibly mean the end of the world!
Moderation Guideline: +3 Funny.
I'd say that with buzz-speak like that, she's going to make some CIO very happy someday.
This type of stuff is not a problem for me to worry about anymore. It's India's. Direct me to the nearest auto-mechanic school please. It's time to learn how to fix problems that can put money in my pocket.
So she wants to make software more intuitive and wants to make it more like the real world.
:-)
Perhaps she should make up her mind.
The real world has software bugs!?
;]
You been experiencing a few too many glitches in the Matrix lately, or something?
...it also seemed like she misstated Java's approach as a "sandbag architecture" as opposed to a "sandbox architecture". I keep trying to visualize programmers writing more and more Java code to stave off the inevitable surge of bugs....
Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
"....especially because I've always thought that the principles of fuzzy logic should be exploited far more widely in software engineering. Still, my quest for the answer to Jaron's question seems to yield ideas orthogonal to his own. "
I fear people that talk like this. It makes me wonder if they go home at night and plug themselves into something.....
"The constant security-related problems associated with Microsoft's products are due to its fundamental platform architecture. Java technology, in contrast, enjoys exceptional immunity to viruses because of its sandbag architecture."
I think she means sandbox architecture
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
"and more closely simulate and resemble the real world". Hey, I know! How about a COmmon Business-Oriented Language? We could call it COBOL perhaps.
"I am Heisenborg. You will probably be assimilated"
I agree everyone should try it. Rather than argue about whether it saves time or wastes time, everyone should start writing unit tests for every project before you begin coding it, give it a couple years, then decide whether it's worth it or not.
Right now I am in a Computer Science program. I have had the pleasure to see:
I don't think the whole proper education thing is going to happen any time soon.
Lots of shameless plugs, yes, but look at what's being advocated:
;-)
* More intuitive
* More inclusive
* Pattern recognition vs. "yes/no" type logic
Ah... ok, let's turn those 90 degrees:
* More context-aware
* There's more than one way to do it
* Logic using higher order comparison such as regular expressions and grammars
Hmmm... Perl anyone?
Perl is universally panned by people who don't use it for being "opaque", and yet that opacity is the result of all three of the above, and CPAN is a monumental testiment to the value of those features in terms of large-scale software engineering.
If your opinion of dollar-signs is so valuable to you that you can't see the value in 4GB of source code sitting at your fingertips, then I direct you to the nearest Java tutorial....
You need to give the man the respect due him. After all, he has a REALLY low ICQ number !
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Letter To Iran
She's the real story here. I think I'm in love.
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
Even the tech gurus on Star Trek can reprogram most computer problems in minutes, or at the outside, in a day or two. This would appear to be functional programming, as mentioned earlier in the article. I've never heard Jordi complain about referencing a null pointer anywhere.
In short, the answer is Star Trek. Sun, Microsoft, IBM, and the rest just needs to get off their asses and deliver whatever programming language was used on the Enterprise! Damn the bureaucrats, damn them all!
is to _test_ your code.
...against the business requirements.
True. It's always going to be some sort of combination of 'need it yesterday', 'soon', 'works pretty good', or 'handles fatal exceptions exceptionally well'.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
If you want bondage languages that force bad programs to be minimally debuggable, use Python, but don't expect to be as productive in a language that forces you to think in some particular way about your problem.
/usr/local/lib/perl/5.6.1 /usr/local/share/perl/5.6.1 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.6.1 /usr/share/perl/5.6.1 /usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at -e line 1.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at -e line 1.
I tried to use Python, but perl complained:
Can't locate Python.pm in @INC (@INC contains: