Frustrated with the buggy forums
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
If the tool has an issue, the programmer needs to work around it to get it solved.
I just didn't like that response. Maybe I can't take my own medicine. :) [edit] I mean, ahz's original response about the tool, not your response.[/edit] Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures -- modified at 20:03 Tuesday 14th March, 2006
Marc Clifton wrote:
I just didn't like that response. Maybe I can't take my own medicine.
Yeah it wasn't the friendliest. Here, I'll go vote him down for ya (just kidding). :-D Jeremy Falcon
-
Michael P Butler wrote:
No piece of software of any complexity can have zero bugs.
Yes it can! My pet hate is when people make the above statement, it implies that you expect your code to be buggy and already are thinking up excuses for the errors! The main reason for 'buggy' code is cost, to properly design, write and test costs time and money. I used to write software that had to run 24/7, it can be done.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
-
I'm probably gonna get pummelled for this but... I need to get it off my chest: Am I the only who thinks that there's NO excuse for the CP forums to be buggy? This is a developer site: run by developers, for developers. You'd expect it to contain zero bugs, or at the very least for the bugs to be fixed immediately after being detected. But no. The bugs exist and they linger... and when you think they've been fixed, they come back. WTH! I know that this is a free site so I shouldn't expect much from it, and perhaps even be grateful for what I get. The old, "you get what you pay for" comes to mind. But the truth is that Chris Maunder and company aren't doing this for free. There are plenty of ads on this site that are paying to keep it running, and then some. And the ads are there because enough of us come to this site on a regular basis. In other words, if enough of us left, the site would stop receiving advertising dollars and eventually die. So indirectly, we are contributing to this site and its developers. At a minimum, we should be able to use it without running into what I consider stupid bugs... Or perhaps having bug-free forums is practically impossible, I don't know. :~ All I know is that if I were in charge of this site's development, I'd make quality a top priority. It doesn't need fancy bells and whistles, but the ones that are there, should work perfectly. And when they don't, they should be fixed immediately. There's just no excuse to keep something broken broken, especially when so many developers use it on a regular basis. I'd be so embarrassed if it was happening to my site. That's all -- just voicing my frustration. Alvaro
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds
I strongly believe that the positives of this site far outwheights the negatives, and that improvements are being made in very very reasonable timeframe. Hard to believe I'd compare it to to a magazine, but some people do come here for the articles :-O so there are priorities. But a 5 for having a 4 pages long thread in the soapboax wihtout mentioning left, right, religion or terorism. :laugh:
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
I just didn't like that response. Maybe I can't take my own medicine.
Yeah it wasn't the friendliest. Here, I'll go vote him down for ya (just kidding). :-D Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I'll go vote him down for ya
:^):(:((
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I'll go vote him down for ya
:^):(:((
It was a joke. ;P Btw, I wasn't the one who voted you down. Jeremy Falcon
-
I strongly believe that the positives of this site far outwheights the negatives, and that improvements are being made in very very reasonable timeframe. Hard to believe I'd compare it to to a magazine, but some people do come here for the articles :-O so there are priorities. But a 5 for having a 4 pages long thread in the soapboax wihtout mentioning left, right, religion or terorism. :laugh:
HollyHooo wrote:
But a 5 for having a 4 pages long thread in the soapboax wihtout mentioning left, right, religion or terorism.
:laugh: No wonder I'm missing it.
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds
-
I'm probably gonna get pummelled for this but... I need to get it off my chest: Am I the only who thinks that there's NO excuse for the CP forums to be buggy? This is a developer site: run by developers, for developers. You'd expect it to contain zero bugs, or at the very least for the bugs to be fixed immediately after being detected. But no. The bugs exist and they linger... and when you think they've been fixed, they come back. WTH! I know that this is a free site so I shouldn't expect much from it, and perhaps even be grateful for what I get. The old, "you get what you pay for" comes to mind. But the truth is that Chris Maunder and company aren't doing this for free. There are plenty of ads on this site that are paying to keep it running, and then some. And the ads are there because enough of us come to this site on a regular basis. In other words, if enough of us left, the site would stop receiving advertising dollars and eventually die. So indirectly, we are contributing to this site and its developers. At a minimum, we should be able to use it without running into what I consider stupid bugs... Or perhaps having bug-free forums is practically impossible, I don't know. :~ All I know is that if I were in charge of this site's development, I'd make quality a top priority. It doesn't need fancy bells and whistles, but the ones that are there, should work perfectly. And when they don't, they should be fixed immediately. There's just no excuse to keep something broken broken, especially when so many developers use it on a regular basis. I'd be so embarrassed if it was happening to my site. That's all -- just voicing my frustration. Alvaro
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
The bugs exist and they linger... and when you think they've been fixed, they come back. WTH!
I've only seen a few non-load related bugs on the site, which is pretty damn amazing given the size if you ask me. If I remember correctly the forum ordering bug started popping up after Chris said that he added some caching code to the first few pages of some of the forums, so I suspect that the bug has to do with posts hitting different versions of the cache or something like that which would make it difficult to track down and fix, especially given that the site is running ASP. I wouldn't consider it a stupid bug, but one that would be really difficult to track down. To top it off, there are probably only two forums in the whole site that have enough post branches for it to show up on, I can see why it might be a low priority bug for the CP team to fix.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Alvaro is :) Plus I never check user-ids and quite a few people have the icon.
John Draich wrote:
Plus I never check user-ids and quite a few people have the icon.
Why would one of us pick a name like John Draich?
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
I'm probably gonna get pummelled for this but... I need to get it off my chest: Am I the only who thinks that there's NO excuse for the CP forums to be buggy? This is a developer site: run by developers, for developers. You'd expect it to contain zero bugs, or at the very least for the bugs to be fixed immediately after being detected. But no. The bugs exist and they linger... and when you think they've been fixed, they come back. WTH! I know that this is a free site so I shouldn't expect much from it, and perhaps even be grateful for what I get. The old, "you get what you pay for" comes to mind. But the truth is that Chris Maunder and company aren't doing this for free. There are plenty of ads on this site that are paying to keep it running, and then some. And the ads are there because enough of us come to this site on a regular basis. In other words, if enough of us left, the site would stop receiving advertising dollars and eventually die. So indirectly, we are contributing to this site and its developers. At a minimum, we should be able to use it without running into what I consider stupid bugs... Or perhaps having bug-free forums is practically impossible, I don't know. :~ All I know is that if I were in charge of this site's development, I'd make quality a top priority. It doesn't need fancy bells and whistles, but the ones that are there, should work perfectly. And when they don't, they should be fixed immediately. There's just no excuse to keep something broken broken, especially when so many developers use it on a regular basis. I'd be so embarrassed if it was happening to my site. That's all -- just voicing my frustration. Alvaro
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Am I the only who thinks that there's NO excuse for the CP forums to be buggy?
They aren't that buggy.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
This is a developer site: run by developers, for developers.
So te forum software is kind of "in house software", right? We are the CP junkies, and we come here to be rid of "zero bugs campaigns", "Quality Drives" and other shit. We love the CP bugs. Anytime I capture a post, I win, anytime someone else captures my post I lose. I think my current score is +2 now. What is yours? :rolleyes: Vent your frustration, look aroiund, and come back.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
I'm probably gonna get pummelled for this but... I need to get it off my chest: Am I the only who thinks that there's NO excuse for the CP forums to be buggy? This is a developer site: run by developers, for developers. You'd expect it to contain zero bugs, or at the very least for the bugs to be fixed immediately after being detected. But no. The bugs exist and they linger... and when you think they've been fixed, they come back. WTH! I know that this is a free site so I shouldn't expect much from it, and perhaps even be grateful for what I get. The old, "you get what you pay for" comes to mind. But the truth is that Chris Maunder and company aren't doing this for free. There are plenty of ads on this site that are paying to keep it running, and then some. And the ads are there because enough of us come to this site on a regular basis. In other words, if enough of us left, the site would stop receiving advertising dollars and eventually die. So indirectly, we are contributing to this site and its developers. At a minimum, we should be able to use it without running into what I consider stupid bugs... Or perhaps having bug-free forums is practically impossible, I don't know. :~ All I know is that if I were in charge of this site's development, I'd make quality a top priority. It doesn't need fancy bells and whistles, but the ones that are there, should work perfectly. And when they don't, they should be fixed immediately. There's just no excuse to keep something broken broken, especially when so many developers use it on a regular basis. I'd be so embarrassed if it was happening to my site. That's all -- just voicing my frustration. Alvaro
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds
-
Ted Ferenc wrote:
I used to write software that had to run 24/7, it can be done.
Just because it runs 24/7 does not mean it is also free of "bugs." You may have thoroughly tested it, but that merely shows the presence of a bug, not its absence.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"There is no death, only a change of worlds." - Native American Proverb
It never fails to amaze me that computer users put up with 'buggy' software, in what other mature industry would that be put up with? Testing will never find bugs, you eliminate bugs in the initial design, it is faster and easier to find bugs there, than when the code has been released. But customers put up with buugy software, so most don't bother. As one of my colleagues said to me, 'I have never had a Dr. Watson error when running your code, why can't everyone else do that?".
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
-
John Draich wrote:
Had much experience running a million+ user website funded on advertisements?
No, but we have stress test tools. :) Jeremy Falcon
I think in this case it isn't the volume of hits but the volume of eyes. Real people spot mistakes that a stress test tool cannot. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
I'm probably gonna get pummelled for this but... I need to get it off my chest: Am I the only who thinks that there's NO excuse for the CP forums to be buggy? This is a developer site: run by developers, for developers. You'd expect it to contain zero bugs, or at the very least for the bugs to be fixed immediately after being detected. But no. The bugs exist and they linger... and when you think they've been fixed, they come back. WTH! I know that this is a free site so I shouldn't expect much from it, and perhaps even be grateful for what I get. The old, "you get what you pay for" comes to mind. But the truth is that Chris Maunder and company aren't doing this for free. There are plenty of ads on this site that are paying to keep it running, and then some. And the ads are there because enough of us come to this site on a regular basis. In other words, if enough of us left, the site would stop receiving advertising dollars and eventually die. So indirectly, we are contributing to this site and its developers. At a minimum, we should be able to use it without running into what I consider stupid bugs... Or perhaps having bug-free forums is practically impossible, I don't know. :~ All I know is that if I were in charge of this site's development, I'd make quality a top priority. It doesn't need fancy bells and whistles, but the ones that are there, should work perfectly. And when they don't, they should be fixed immediately. There's just no excuse to keep something broken broken, especially when so many developers use it on a regular basis. I'd be so embarrassed if it was happening to my site. That's all -- just voicing my frustration. Alvaro
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds
-
It never fails to amaze me that computer users put up with 'buggy' software, in what other mature industry would that be put up with? Testing will never find bugs, you eliminate bugs in the initial design, it is faster and easier to find bugs there, than when the code has been released. But customers put up with buugy software, so most don't bother. As one of my colleagues said to me, 'I have never had a Dr. Watson error when running your code, why can't everyone else do that?".
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
Ted Ferenc wrote:
what other mature industry would that be put up with
uhhmm, the automobile industry? the number of recalls increases from year to year.
-
Ted Ferenc wrote:
what other mature industry would that be put up with
uhhmm, the automobile industry? the number of recalls increases from year to year.
ahz wrote:
automobile industry
You get in your car in the morning and it will start, 99.9999% of the time, put the brakes on and it will stop, the doors close, the radio works, the windows go up and down, the boot/truck opens and closes. You put the key in the door and it opens and you don't need to download 'maintenace' releases every few weeks, neither does a car get viruses!
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
-
If you can do a better job then start you own site, in the mean time stop fuckking moaning about this one. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
If you can do a better job then start you own site, in the mean time stop f***king moaning about this one.
No. And I'm not f*cking moaning. So be a good sport and f*ck off.
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds
-
I think in this case it isn't the volume of hits but the volume of eyes. Real people spot mistakes that a stress test tool cannot. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doPaul Watson wrote:
I think in this case it isn't the volume of hits but the volume of eyes. Real people spot mistakes that a stress test tool cannot.
Um no. A stress test tool can help spot concurrency issues, which is what I bet it going on. Jeremy Falcon
-
Paul Watson wrote:
I think in this case it isn't the volume of hits but the volume of eyes. Real people spot mistakes that a stress test tool cannot.
Um no. A stress test tool can help spot concurrency issues, which is what I bet it going on. Jeremy Falcon
Uh, no, that isn't a stress test tool, that is an acceptance test tool. Stress test simply tests response and other rates within acceptable thresholds, hence stress. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
Uh, no, that isn't a stress test tool, that is an acceptance test tool. Stress test simply tests response and other rates within acceptable thresholds, hence stress. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doWell the tools I've used then included more than one type of test. Either way, a concurrency issue can be fixed. CP has been letting it go on for quite some time. Jeremy Falcon
-
fat_boy wrote:
If you can do a better job then start you own site, in the mean time stop f***king moaning about this one.
No. And I'm not f*cking moaning. So be a good sport and f*ck off.
... since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag. - Vincent Reynolds