Re: Template open/save behavior

Hi John,

On 2/14/06 6:42 AM, in article C018379F.2E2A7%john@xxxxxxxxxxx, "John McGhie
[MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]" <john@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Can you point me to where this is written?

I certainly can :-) Most of the popular standards are listed here:
http://www.12207.com/test1.htm

This page does not contain a definition of the term "bug". What's more, its
search box (not the Google one which takes you offsite, but the TechStreet
search box) is "unable to find exact matches" for the term.

So I ask again (and more specifically): Can you point me to where in the
ISO standards or Carnegie Mellon University publications "bug" is defined as
a slang synonym for "defect", with the definition of "defect" including both
unintentional flaws and design flaws (or, if you prefer, Design, Coding and
Specification flaws)? That is, after all, what you claim :-).

And when you say "software industry", are you talking about some unilateral
organization? I wasn't aware that such a thing existed.

Are you serious?

Entirely. I said "unilateral" as in "emphasizing or recognizing only one
side of a subject". In this case that "one side" would be *your* definition
of "bug".

Ask some of the coders you know what industry they work in. Yes, there are
published standards that employees in the software industry need to adhere to,
enforceable in various ways, just as there are road rules. Some of these
standards are required of software testers and business analysts. One of
those standards is an official glossary of industry terms and definitions.

And where might I find that?

Are you saying that every software company accepts "your" definition of these
terms?

No. They all accept the ISO/IEEE definitions, and so do I :-)

Again, where is the ISO/IEEE definition of "bug"?

And if the ISO defines "bug" as you have stated, but the majority of people
understand it otherwise, how is their definition useful?

The official term is "defect". The term "bug" is officially interchangeable
with it, and has the same definition.

Where does it say that? This entire debate is about the meaning of the term
"bug", not "defect". You haven't demonstrated support for your claim
according to the organizations you say support it. Your *saying* that "bug"
is interchangeable with "defect" does not make it so.

As I've said before, the term "bug" is a commonly accepted term for a type
of flaw (or defect) which was not intended by the designer of the software.

Nope. It has NEVER had that meaning within the industry.

And it says that where?

Sorry Beth: That's not germane to this argument. More than 99 per cent of
people working in the software industry have the same very precise
definitions for the terms used in software quality assurance. They have to
have; they need to write them into contracts to deliver software.

And where is their "same very precise definition" of "bug"? It's entirely
germane.

If we were all to accept "your" definition (a bug is a defect is a flaw is a
bug), then we would need *new* terms to distinguish between a defect that
was by design and a defect that was not intended. Since we already have
those terms ("design flaw" and "bug"), why create new ones? And what terms
would *you* use to distinguish between the two?

Sorry: You need to understand how the commercial software development
industry works.

No, I don't. Not in this case. All I need to know is the official,
unilaterally-accepted definition in the "software industry" of the word
"bug".

The point is that you are confusing the steps in a
tightly-defined process.

No I'm not. The steps in the design process (which I completely understand
and have no problem with) are altogether irrelevant to the definition of the
word "bug".

In software engineering, they are ALL "Defects". You are trying to say that
a Design Defect (it sux but we meant it to be that way) is somehow different
from a Coding Defect (it sux, because the programmer made a mistake) or a
Specification Defect (it sux because the business analyst got the wrong end
of the stick).

No. I'm not talking about the meaning of the term "defect" at all. I'm
talking about the meaning of the term "bug" which I contend equates ­ in
common parlance at least ­ to what you define above as a Coding Defect, not
*any* kind of defect.

Respectfully (but in total disagreement on the basis of usefulness in
communication and discourse ­ and regardless of the ISO or Carnegie Mellon
University :-)

Well, I totally respect your position, and your courage in defending your
position.

It doesn't take courage. It only takes logical thought and sticking to the
point.

Like World Peace, it remains a work in progress: but we're all agreed that a
"Bug" is when it doesn't do what the customer asked for. Debate continues
as to whether we should further extend that to say a bug is when it doesn't
do what the customer "needed".

No, we're not all agreed at all. Nor have you shown me where the "software
industry" agrees either.

You're trying to reinvent the wheel, John, and it's not necessary to do so
in order to get across your point. You don't need to redefine the word
"bug" in order to make people understand how software development works. It
works just as well when "bug" is understood to mean "coding defect", which I
still contend is the commonly accepted meaning.

Apparently it's not merely "commonly accepted": at least you have not yet
shown me where in the Standards it says otherwise :-).

Beth

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Template open/save behavior
    ... ISO standards or Carnegie Mellon University publications "bug" is defined as ... A defect, if encountered during execution, may cause a failure ... If the required function is to produce result X and the software does indeed ... I think that as the industry has matured, it has put greater and greater ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)
  • Re: Template open/save behavior
    ... I certainly can :-) Most of the popular standards are listed here: ... Ask some of the coders you know what industry they work ... of flaw (or defect) which was not intended by the designer of the software. ... was by design and a defect that was not intended. ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)
  • Re: Template open/save behavior
    ... "defect". ... Does it do what the CUSTOMER really wanted? ... specifications it is, if the customer didn't want it that way, it's a bug. ... days to be a design bug or a specification bug or an analysis bug. ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)
  • Re: To be a bug or not to be a bug [Was: Re: Template open/save behavior]
    ... What I say in this forum is often from the standpoint of being a "customer" ... Since I have some exposure to the software industry I know ... behaviour" that IS a defect. ... When it comes to the meaning of "bug", you and I, John (or if you ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)
  • Re: Template open/save behavior
    ... customer needs and fails to do so perhaps 'buggy' is appropriate, ... intended_ I don't see how that can be declared a bug simply because any one ... designer/manufacturer are working for me. ... A defect, if encountered during execution, may cause a failure ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)