Win2000 has 63,000 'defects' 
Author Message
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

Urging developers to clean up their code, a Microsoft exec
says: 'How many of you would spend $500 on a piece of
software with over 63,000 potential known defects?' It
ships Thursday.

Not everyone will be having fun at Microsoft Corp. next week. While
the software giant and its partners celebrate the arrival of Windows
2000 on Thursday, Feb. 17, hundreds of members of the Windows
development team will be busy cleaning up the mess.

---> http://www.*-*-*.com/ ,4586,2436920,00.html?chkpt=z...

Someone to sell or install them poor an Ada compiler ? ;o) G.



Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

Quote:

> Urging developers to clean up their code, a Microsoft exec
> says: 'How many of you would spend $500 on a piece of
> software with over 63,000 potential known defects?' It
> ships Thursday.

> Not everyone will be having fun at Microsoft Corp. next week. While
> the software giant and its partners celebrate the arrival of Windows
> 2000 on Thursday, Feb. 17, hundreds of members of the Windows
> development team will be busy cleaning up the mess.

> Someone to sell or install them poor an Ada compiler ? ;o) G.

Why do you think the defects have anything to do with the language
used to develop Windows 2000? Do you know that the defects are
coding errors, as opposed to being design errors or unimplemented
features?


Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

Quote:


>> Urging developers to clean up their code, a Microsoft exec
>> says: 'How many of you would spend $500 on a piece of
>> software with over 63,000 potential known defects?' It
>> ships Thursday.

>> Not everyone will be having fun at Microsoft Corp. next week. While
>> the software giant and its partners celebrate the arrival of Windows
>> 2000 on Thursday, Feb. 17, hundreds of members of the Windows
>> development team will be busy cleaning up the mess.

>> Someone to sell or install them poor an Ada compiler ? ;o) G.

> Why do you think the defects have anything to do with the language
> used to develop Windows 2000? Do you know that the defects are
> coding errors, as opposed to being design errors or unimplemented
> features?

I am convinced that a great many of their defects are coding issues.

I am not convinced that fixing all the coding issues (by any method)
would not still leave a great many other defects, probably enough to
make the fact that coding issues had been fixed invisible to the user.

I am not at all convinced that defects enumerated by Microsoft (or
any other vendor) cover a reasonable fraction of the total defects
in the software.



Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

Quote:

> Urging developers to clean up their code, a Microsoft exec
> says: 'How many of you would spend $500 on a piece of
> software with over 63,000 potential known defects?' It
> ships Thursday.

63,000 `potential known defects' (whatever this means) isn't too bad for
a software product consisting of over 30 million lines of code, is it?


Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

Quote:

> I am convinced that a great many of their defects are coding issues.

> I am not convinced that fixing all the coding issues (by any method)
> would not still leave a great many other defects, probably enough to
> make the fact that coding issues had been fixed invisible to the user.

> I am not at all convinced that defects enumerated by Microsoft (or
> any other vendor) cover a reasonable fraction of the total defects
> in the software.

Do you have evidence for any of these convictions?


Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

Quote:

> > I am convinced that a great many of their defects are coding issues.

> ... snip ...

> Do you have evidence for any of these convictions?

For this one

http://www.lucent.com/minds/techjournal/apr-jun1998/abstract.html

The paper by Yu on "Software Fault Prevention...".

This also agrees with my own (biased, personal, insert disclaimer here...)
observations.

Interestingly, the Erlang guys work in a very similar space and the
language they push as leading to robust systems is dynamically typed.
Go figure.

-- Brian



Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

Quote:

> 63,000 `potential known defects' (whatever this means) isn't too bad for
> a software product consisting of over 30 million lines of code, is it?

From my experience, this number is probably derived from some internal
change request tracking system. That means that there are likely 63k
submittals of one form or another wherein there may be a large number of
duplications.

Of course not all bugs are equal in the eyes of their creator. The
"defects" could range from "Correct the spelling of XYZ in a comment in
module ABC" all the way up to "If I click on this icon the disk drive is
erased and the whole system locks up."

Still in all, I think a reasonable presumption about a large system
written in a weakly typed language would be that some significant
portion of the known defects would never occur if it had been programmed
in a more rigorous language such as Ada. In the past, I have collected
enough data on similar project comparisons to be able to convince myself
and others that Ada resulted in a decrease of defects by a factor of
four over similar systems with weak checking.

MDC
--
=============================================================
Marin David Condic   - Quadrus Corporation -   1.800.555.3393
1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
http://www.quadruscorp.com/

Visit my web site at:  http://www.mcondic.com/

"Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin."
        --  Allan Meltzer, Economist
=============================================================



Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

Quote:

> 63,000 `potential known defects' (whatever this means)

A news report said that number was achieved by running an automated
scanner over the software.  Certainly there are many defects that
would not be uncovered by such a scanner.


Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

Quote:

> Do you have evidence for any of these convictions?

Why must you be so argumentative ?

I know how to spell the words "I have proof", and would have done so
if that were the case.



Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

Quote:

> Why must you be so argumentative ?
> I know how to spell the words "I have proof", and would have done so
> if that were the case.

You're probably right. I was just defending the honor of
"my favorite language" :-)

It would be interesting to see a defect analysis similar to that
Lucent study (which was for old pre-ANSI C code) done for a large Ada
project, to see what kinds of bugs show up there. I wonder if ACT
keeps statistics on that sort of thing, and if so, whether they would
be willing to comment.



Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

interesting to see a defect analysis similar to that

Quote:
> Lucent study (which was for old pre-ANSI C code) done for a large Ada
> project, to see what kinds of bugs show up there. I wonder if ACT
> keeps statistics on that sort of thing, and if so, whether they would
> be willing to comment.

Well, there is that Steve Zeigler study on the Verdix compiler technology.
Probably someone here has the URL for it.

- Ed



Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

Quote:

> > Why must you be so argumentative ?
> > I know how to spell the words "I have proof", and would have done so
> > if that were the case.

> You're probably right. I was just defending the honor of
> "my favorite language" :-)

I'm surprised that you even have a favorite. ;-)

Quote:
> It would be interesting to see a defect analysis similar to that
> Lucent study (which was for old pre-ANSI C code) done for a large Ada
> project, to see what kinds of bugs show up there.

That would indeed be interesting. It would also be interesting to find out
roughly what fraction of the installed base of C code is "new ISO C" rather
than bad old K&R. My experience is that a lot of brand new C code out there
is still pre-ANSI, meaning roughly "prototype free". Similarly, I'd like
to find out what fraction of C++ code is truly ISO C++ compliant. When I
was using C++ a lot (mid 90's) it seemed that no two compilers would
handle the same subset of templates. It would have helped C++ to have an
Ada like test suite so that there would be some minimal level of agreement.

-- Brian



Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'
Arrgh!  I've been bitten by wrap-around!  The doc_key is 337, not 3.  I'm
sending it again with the window widened a bit, but if it still doesn't put
the entire URL on one line you'll have to type the 37 on the end.

http://www.rational.com/sitewide/support/whitepapers/dynamic.jtmpl?do...
37



Sat, 03 Aug 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 31 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

 Relevant Pages 

1. using 'system' under win2000/nt/9x

2. Using 'gets' with SciTe under Win2000

3. having trouble 'making' XF

4. Defect - Mine or the compiler's?

5. Trying to get the apache $UNIQUE_ID but having the character '%' converted to '@'

6. How do you logoff the user's session in Win2000 from Labview

7. out-port.vi doesn't work in Win2000

8. Ctrl+. doesn't work with win2000

9. like the CPU usage recorder of win2000's task manager

10. Python 2.3 IDLE doesn't show on Win2000

11. python IDLE on win2000 doesn't startup

12. I'm having a cpu problem

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software