| ??? 03/03/10 23:57 Read: times |
#173804 - Is it "lucky" or "unlucky" when bad code runs "correctly" |
For example, here: http://www.8052.com/forum/read/173759 - where the NUL termination was not provided for a 'C' string.
Now it is possible that the very next byte after the end of the unterminated string might just happen to contain a zero value; in that case, the code would appear to "work" - despite being fundamentally flawed! The question is, should this be considered "lucky" or "unlucky"? "Lucky" because the code actually "works" when it shouldn't; "Unlucky" because it will inevitably stop "working" at some point, and you'll be stumped because, "it was working perfectly (sic) yesterday"... |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Is it "lucky" or "unlucky" when bad code runs "correctly" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I vote UNlucky | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Unlucky | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| unlucky | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| very unlucky | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Very unlucky. At least during testing. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bugs happen | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| certainly unlucky but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| But it would be very unlucky... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That is a very good point... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| recalling a non-aberrant behavior | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Just a matter of chance | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you do not know Murphy was an optimist? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I'm not defending | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| considering ?? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I disagree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
not really | 01/01/70 00:00 |