| Andy Neil 03/03/10 17:57 Read: 503 times Basingstoke Uk |
#173804 - Is it "lucky" or "unlucky" when bad code runs "correctly" |
For example, here: http://www.8052.com/forum/read/173759 - where the NUL termination was not provided for a 'C' string.
Now it is possible that the very next byte after the end of the unterminated string might just happen to contain a zero value; in that case, the code would appear to "work" - despite being fundamentally flawed! The question is, should this be considered "lucky" or "unlucky"? "Lucky" because the code actually "works" when it shouldn't; "Unlucky" because it will inevitably stop "working" at some point, and you'll be stumped because, "it was working perfectly (sic) yesterday"... |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Is it "lucky" or "unlucky" when bad code runs "correctly" | Andy Neil | 03/03/10 17:57 |
| I vote UNlucky | Erik Malund | 03/03/10 18:03 |
| Unlucky | Neil Kurzman | 03/03/10 20:48 |
| unlucky | James Hinnant | 03/03/10 20:52 |
| very unlucky | Mahmood Elnasser | 03/03/10 23:54 |
| Very unlucky. At least during testing. | Christoph Franck | 03/04/10 01:51 |
bugs happen  | Jan Waclawek | 03/04/10 01:52 |
| certainly unlucky but... | MUNISH KUMAR | 03/04/10 02:07 |
| But it would be very unlucky... | Andy Neil | 03/04/10 02:39 |
| That is a very good point... | Michael Karas | 03/04/10 05:07 |
| recalling a non-aberrant behavior | Erik Malund | 03/04/10 06:30 |
| Just a matter of chance | MUNISH KUMAR | 03/04/10 07:11 |
| you do not know Murphy was an optimist? | Erik Malund | 03/04/10 08:43 |
| I'm not defending | MUNISH KUMAR | 03/04/10 11:54 |
| considering ?? | Erik Malund | 03/04/10 06:39 |
| I disagree | Neil Kurzman | 03/04/10 16:03 |
not really | Erik Malund | 03/05/10 07:13 |