From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,21b3f6811a7b30be
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: "Bugs" (Was: Anyone could give a complete and yet small program
 on the use for the generic
Date: 1997/01/08
Message-ID: <1997Jan8.162324.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 208528553
x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org
references: <5ahf34$snd$1@news.nyu.edu> <dewar.852260373@merv>
 <5aitud$hjr@top.mitre.org> <E3GsL2.J28@nonexistent.com>
 <Pine.GSO.3.95.970108102313.20557C-100000@nunic.nu.edu>
x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN
x-trace: 852758608/15995
organization: LJK Software
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970108102313.20557C-100000@nunic.nu.edu>, Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu> writes:

>   A programming mistake results in a software defect. The defect is the
>   cause of a run-time fault.  It is encouraging to see the relatively
>   recent metric, "defect density" in wider use.  Now we simply need to
>   attribute those defects to mistakes instead of to "bugs."

So what is wrong with the term "defect" ?

It is trivial to determine at the initial report that at least one
defect is present.  It may be a line of code, it may be running
the software in the wrong rocket, it may be in the design of the
user interface, it may be in the user training, but there is
at least one (and typically more) defect(s) to be sorted out.

Larry Kilgallen