the new math: old battle of the lovees was: PDP1 3582

snip

If the program starts out with 100 bugs, and the person finds and fixes 50 of them, the resulting code still has at least 50 bugs. The code's still buggy, but fixing the 50 bugs doesn't count? Admittedly with this style of "debugging" they're apt to introduce new bugs in "fixing" the old ones, and maybe that doesn't count.

This may be a point that academics don't appreciate as well as people who've had to ship a product. I probably *should* get it, having spent a few years writing code for a living, but what I mostly observed in those years was there was that there was never enough time to do things right, but plenty of time to do them over, which biases me in favor of the "do it right" approach. Maybe I started out leaning that way, though.

Didn't we discuss this here a while back, and someone floated the theory that women were more apt to take this "make it perfect or don't do it at all" style, while men were more apt to just get *something* working at least partly?

We're supporting the stereotype. Ack.

snip

-- B. L. Mbuttingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.