C Community's Cavalier Attitude On Software Reliability

[Flame Bait]

billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu at hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>   Under no circumstances should a DEFECTS section contain flippant
>   comments such as "I tinker a lot, so things break, but then I fix
>   them, hooray", "Not bloody likely", or other comments which indicate
>   a cavalier attitude toward software reliability.  

Why not?  Personally, I like the lighter tone often found in the BUGS 
section, and wish more documentation used it.  What do you think of 
programmers (or software engineers) laughing at work?  Pretty unprofessional,
right?  Ban it!  Does wearing a T-shirt to work which says "Bugs Rule" 
show a cavalier attitude toward software reliablity?  Maybe you can ban 
that too.  Jeeze.  Why don't you put up a sign: "programmers who have fun 
(or try to) will be branded `unreliable'".  

>   DEFECTS sections exist for the purpose of listing known areas in
>   which an implementation does not correspond to the specification,

Unless you have the specification on line, this is pretty useless.  I'm glad
the BUGS (or DEFECTS) section lists things that the program doesn't do which 
a reasonable person might expect it to do, or the reverse.  I care more about
what the user expects, than what the (usually dusty) specification says.

The units program is a great example of this, a reasonable person might
be tempted to do his expense report based on the numbers it provides, but
the BUGS section warns him of the folly in this.

The BUGS section should should also list features which do not work and 
similar problems, if such exist.  But there should be few of these.

Joshua Levy                          joshua at atherton.com  home:(415)968-3718
                        {decwrl|sun|hpda}!athertn!joshua  work:(408)734-9822