jaunty the worst ever
christopher.rob.jones at cern.ch
Wed Nov 11 22:14:41 UTC 2009
On 11 Nov 2009, at 8:32pm, Karl F. Larsen wrote:
> Robert Spanjaard wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:11:50 +0000, Steve Flynn wrote:
>>>>> Note I say buggy, not badly designed. These are difference things and
>>>>> mutually exclusive.
>>>> No, they're not. Badly designed software can be buggy or stable, and
>>>> buggy software can be well designed or badly.
>>> That's what mutually exclusive means.
>> Excuse me? Mutually exclusive means that if something is A, it cannot be
>> B. And if it's B, it cannot be A. So if it's buggy, it cannot be badly
>> designed. And if it's badly designed, it cannot be buggy.
> I think the problem here is buggy and badly designed are NOT
> mutually_exclusive. Buggy results from badly designed.
OK, first off lets clear one thing up. When I said mutually exclusive I really was thinking "unconnected" ...
That said, you are (partly) wrong. You can have a good design that is poorly implemented, i.e. buggy code that crashes, and you can have a poor design that is implemented well, in the sense that the application layout is bad, but the underlying C/C++/whatever is well written and the application 'works'.
It is true though that that a bad design can make it easier to write poor code. and vice versa.
More information about the ubuntu-users