Frustrated with the buggy forums
-
DavidCrow wrote:
You may have thoroughly tested it, but that merely shows the presence of a bug, not its absence.
:confused: Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!It's a study of "program correctness" by the late Professor Dijkstra.
"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
-
DavidCrow wrote:
You may have thoroughly tested it, but that merely shows the presence of a bug, not its absence.
:confused: Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!You can't prove a negative. Elementary logic. So the statement "there are no bugs in this program" for a sufficiently large program is not verifiable.
-
You can't prove a negative. Elementary logic. So the statement "there are no bugs in this program" for a sufficiently large program is not verifiable.
ahz wrote:
You can't prove a negative.
Prove that!
ahz wrote:
Elementary logic.
It most certainly isn't Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
-
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 agree completely. It's hard to beat the CP community though, so I'm still here. :)
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
That's all -- just voicing my frustration.
We all need to do that from time-to-time. Jeremy Falcon
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
You'd expect it to contain zero bugs,
No piece of software of any complexity can have zero bugs. Which bugs are we talking about. To be honest, CP seems to be working better than it has ever done. How are you reporting the bugs? Emailing Chris or posting them in the suggestions forum? Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
Michael P Butler wrote:
No piece of software of any complexity can have zero bugs.
True, but there's been outstanding bugs here for a while that haven't been addressed. I don't think finding them is the issue; not taking care of them is. Jeremy Falcon
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Who are you and what have you done with Paul??
Paul Watson? :confused: How could you tell?
... 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:
How could you tell?
Didn't recognize a "Site Builder" by that name and checked his profile. Me thinks Paul is in a strange mood today based on some of his posts. "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
All I know is that if I were in charge of this site's development
Really? Had much experience running a million+ user website funded on advertisements?
John Draich wrote:
Had much experience running a million+ user website funded on advertisements?
No, but we have stress test tools. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
How could you tell?
Didn't recognize a "Site Builder" by that name and checked his profile. Me thinks Paul is in a strange mood today based on some of his posts. "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Didn't recognize a "Site Builder" by that name and checked his profile.
Gotcha.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Me thinks Paul is in a strange mood today based on some of his posts.
Yeah, I noticed that too. :) 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 agree completely. It's hard to beat the CP community though, so I'm still here. :)
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
That's all -- just voicing my frustration.
We all need to do that from time-to-time. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Well all need to do that from time-to-time.
Thanks for understanding man. I love this place too. I'm freaking addicted. :) 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
-
ahz wrote:
You can't prove a negative.
Prove that!
ahz wrote:
Elementary logic.
It most certainly isn't Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
farmer giles wrote:
Prove that
no
-
farmer giles wrote:
Prove that
no
snk snk:-D Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
-
snk snk:-D Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
farmer giles wrote:
snk snk
I would love to see the phonetics for that... :)
-
farmer giles wrote:
snk snk
I would love to see the phonetics for that... :)
It can only be reproduced with one hand over the mouth and nose. Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
-
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:
This is a developer site: run by developers, for developers. You'd expect it to contain zero bugs
I'm beginning to rethink that. Given the premise, of course it has bugs! What would you expect? Usability? Actually, I very rarely notice bugs with the forums. I'm not sure what your issue is. And BTW, before you're so quick at blaming the forum code, you might consider the technologies running the site, and that they might have bugs that Chris and folks have to pull their hair out trying to work around. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
This is a developer site: run by developers, for developers. You'd expect it to contain zero bugs
I'm beginning to rethink that. Given the premise, of course it has bugs! What would you expect? Usability? Actually, I very rarely notice bugs with the forums. I'm not sure what your issue is. And BTW, before you're so quick at blaming the forum code, you might consider the technologies running the site, and that they might have bugs that Chris and folks have to pull their hair out trying to work around. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
Marc Clifton wrote:
you might consider the technologies running the site, and that they might have bugs
it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
you might consider the technologies running the site, and that they might have bugs
it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
ahz wrote:
it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
Oh please. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
This is a developer site: run by developers, for developers. You'd expect it to contain zero bugs
I'm beginning to rethink that. Given the premise, of course it has bugs! What would you expect? Usability? Actually, I very rarely notice bugs with the forums. I'm not sure what your issue is. And BTW, before you're so quick at blaming the forum code, you might consider the technologies running the site, and that they might have bugs that Chris and folks have to pull their hair out trying to work around. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
Marc Clifton wrote:
And BTW, before you're so quick at blaming the forum code, you might consider the technologies running the site, and that they might have bugs that Chris and folks have to pull their hair out trying to work around.
Thread ordering amd some posts getting lost have nothing to do with a bug in ASP. I've used ASP too much to know that. As stated, it's probably a concurrency issue. Jeremy Falcon
-
ahz wrote:
it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
Oh please. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
No offense Marc, but he has a point. If the tool has an issue, the programmer needs to work around it to get it solved. Letting a bug "be" just because it's not your fault isn't the way to run things IMO. Jeremy Falcon
-
No offense Marc, but he has a point. If the tool has an issue, the programmer needs to work around it to get it solved. Letting a bug "be" just because it's not your fault isn't the way to run things IMO. Jeremy Falcon
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
-
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