I understood what your post was saying, but they they aren’t fuzzy equivalents. The basic premise is just false.
Further the quote wasn’t suggesting equivalency. Rather intelligence as one bound on debugging, which is clearly true as can’t get a flatworm to do it. When trying to debug really clever code the easiest solution can be giving up and starting from scratch.
Wrong. A more complex program has more possible origins for the bug. So you need to make more hypothesises to check and verify the bug. Time and intelligence are both a factor here. Sometimes one more than the other.
Clearly you don't think bugs are all solved in seconds and limited only based off of intelligence. A harder bug often needs more time to solve. This is common sense.
> A more complex program has more possible origins for the bug. So you need to make more hypothesises to check and verify the bug.
This isn’t a discussion about all bugs but the class of bugs created from dealing with clever code. Very difficult bugs may be fairly quick to solve in comparison to simple bugs that require some long process to replicate. Time to solve really doesn’t map well to difficulty.
>Clearly you don't think bugs are all solved in seconds and limited only based off of intelligence.
False, you clearly missed me stating it intelligence was “one” limitation not the only limitation. Poor tooling can be a massive pain among many other things. Again though this is talking about debugging a very specific kind of unnecessarily complex code.
>This isn’t a discussion about all bugs but the class of bugs created from dealing with clever code. Very difficult bugs may be fairly quick to solve in comparison to simple bugs that require some long process to replicate. Time to solve really doesn’t map well to difficulty.
It does. A bug solved in seconds is usually considered less difficult than one solved in weeks. It maps easily.
>False, you clearly missed me stating it intelligence was “one” limitation not the only limitation. Poor tooling can be a massive pain among many other things. Again though this is talking about debugging a very specific kind of unnecessarily complex code.
The quote was suggesting absolutism one limitation. By showing the existence of an equivalency I've shown the quote is not absolute. Therefore the quote is not intelligent. Therefore your statement is false and nonsensical.
> It does. A bug solved in seconds is usually considered less difficult than one solved in weeks. It maps easily.
Luck wildly impacts how long ‘difficult’ problems take to solve. I’ve solved bugs in seconds someone literally spent weeks and asked multiple people to help them solve and I’ve had the same thing happen to me.
Thus actual solve time and absolute difficulty are almost orthogonal.
> The quote was suggesting absolutism one limitation. By showing the existence of an equivalency I've shown the quote is not absolute. Therefore the quote is not intelligent. Therefore your statement is false and nonsensical.
Again no, it was saying one limitation becomes significant in a specific situation. Often these bugs may not actually take long to fix, but you’ll suffer when dealing with them. Even strait forward off by one errors can be annoying when you have to reason about really tricky bits of code.
That feeling where you spend an hour staring at an IDE with absolutely no clue what’s going on sucks even if it doesn’t take that long to actually fix the issue.
>Thus actual solve time and absolute difficulty are almost orthogonal.
No it just means luck is another factor. You have luck, intelligence and length of time. Time is correlated with possibility right? You can get lucky and guess the probability on the get go.
Either way you introduced a third possibility here which goes further to illustrate that this quotation is inaccurate and not intelligent.
>Again no, it was saying one limitation becomes significant in a specific situation. Often these bugs may not actually take long to fix, but you’ll suffer when dealing with them. Even strait forward off by one errors can be annoying when you have to reason about really tricky bits of code.
False. You are absolutely wrong. The statement was made without qualification to a specific situation. Therefore it is made in the context of the universal situation meaning absolutist. Sinking with the ship again.
>That feeling where you spend an hour staring at an IDE with absolutely no clue what’s going on sucks even if it doesn’t take that long to actually fix the issue.
So? This doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the quotation is wrong. How you feel during debugging is off topic.
"If you" doesn't mean what you're implying it to mean, this is a deliberate twisting of the meaning by you. If you write code as cleverly as possible you can still solve a bug with a lot of time, with luck and/or with intelligence.
He is saying if you write code as cleverly as possible then in ALL situations it will be impossible to debug by you, which is false. The quote is not intelligent.
You know all of this you're just sinking with the ship and trying to manipulate the situation your way while throwing insults at me on my ability to understand language. Insults are a signature move by someone who has clearly lost the discussion and you've lost definitively.
I think we're both done here. After that insult there is no further need to continue the conversation. Please leave.
Nope, nobody writes every single line of code in a program as cleverly as possible attempting to do so generally means you don’t finish.
And no it’s not saying in ALL situations you can’t solve ANY bugs. You only finish debugging when you solve every bug not just 1 of them. Further sometimes you’re going to write a clever bit of code that doesn’t contain a bug and thus doesn’t need to be debugged.
So it’s saying writing buggy code is easier than correct code, so avoid writing clever code or some of it is going to stay buggy. That’s what the quote actually means.
PS: Also, that wasn’t an insult it’s a statement of fact. You’re trying to twist the statement as not being qualified but it’s got a qualifier.
>PS: Also, that wasn’t an insult it’s a statement of fact. You’re trying to twist the statement as not being qualified but it’s got a qualifier.
You're a liar. I clearly am typing english and reading your responses. You're typing to me in english so you know I understand it. What you said was therefore with 100% intent malice because it's simply not true. You are not a moral person. You're just an asshole and you know it. THIS statement can be claimed to be a fact, not yours, not even in the slightest.
I mean you know what happens when you call a stupid person "stupid" to his face and then say it's a fact? It's not an insult? Just a fact? You know this. No need to spell it out. You're an ass hole.
>Nope, nobody writes every single line of code in a program as cleverly as possible attempting to do so generally means you don’t finish.
You're just making stuff up at this point. A quotation made around a situation that can never occur according to you? You're just lying now.
>And no it’s not saying in ALL situations you can’t solve ANY bugs. You only finish debugging when you solve every bug not just 1 of them. Further sometimes you’re going to write a clever bit of code that doesn’t contain a bug and thus doesn’t need to be debugged.
No you're just adjusting the meaning to fit your agenda. You're going at a bit of of a stretch here. This conversation has descended into way to deep of pedantism thanks to your attempt to twist things in your favor.
>So it’s saying writing buggy code is easier than correct code, so avoid writing clever code or some of it is going to stay buggy. That’s what the quote actually means.
No. It's simplistic to say that clever code tends to be buggier. This guy took the extra step to say that clever code is "by definition" not debuggable. Again twisting the situation to fit your agenda.
Man you're done. You need to stop with the insults and stop with these pathetic attempts at explaining your point of view.
Ignorance doesn’t mean stupidity it means you don’t understand something. It’s possible to gain understanding when you accept you’re wrong and try and learn, but lashing out means you will forever wallow in ignorance.
> generally means
“can never occur” this this is why you don’t understand. You need to actually read what was written not whatever nonsense comes into your head.
You only need to debug code that’s not correct. Therefore logically when talking about the effort to write code vs debug that code they don’t mean the effort to write correct code vs debut correct code. Instead it’s the effort to create incorrect code vs debut that incorrect code. Any other interpretation is nonsense.
Further the quote wasn’t suggesting equivalency. Rather intelligence as one bound on debugging, which is clearly true as can’t get a flatworm to do it. When trying to debug really clever code the easiest solution can be giving up and starting from scratch.