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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: Richard Riehle Subject: Re: "Bugs" Date: 1997/01/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212684512 references: <5ahf34$snd$1@news.nyu.edu> <5aitud$hjr@top.mitre.org> content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII organization: National University, San Diego mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: Richard Riehle newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-01-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 8 Jan 1997, Robert Dewar wrote: RDD> Richard Riehle says RD> RR> " The original "bug" was an actual insect that orginated outside the RR> computer in which it appeared. If an error in one program RR> originates in some other program, it might be a "bug" in that RR> receiving program,but it is probably someone else's mistake." > > RD> This is an old bit of urban legend, but is wrong, the term bug is very RD> old. We are talking about meaning 3b in OED II: RD> RD> "A defect or fault in a machine, plan, or the like, orig U.S." Sigh. From the point-of-view of my posting, which is related to the notion of "bug" in the computer age, the "legend" does refer to a moth discovered to be shorting out some part of the computer. Even if the story of the moth were aprocyphal, the lesson remains the same. This lesson is, in fact, reinforced by the way the Oxford English Dictionary citation is worded, "defect or fault." My contention that what we call a bug in software is actually a mistake, is not annulled but ratified by the OED's animistic interpretation and definition. RD> The first quotation given is 1889: "Pall Mall Gaz 11 Mar. 1/1 RD> "Mr Edison, I was informed, had been up the two previous nights RD> discovering 'a bug' in his phonograph -- an expression for solving a RD> difficulty, and implying that some imaginary insect has secreted RD> itself inside and is causing all the trouble." Could one find a better quotation to reaffirm my position on this issue. Here we have a case of an engineer trying to deflect the blame for his errors on some imaginary insect, a bug. This does not sound substantially different from the modern-day programmer who adopts the same excuse for making a mistake. My original point, lest it be lost in the dialogue concerning the historicity of the word "bug," is that we too often and too freely resort to animism with the use of "bug" as a way to abdicate responsibility for our mistakes. Software practice remains one of the last engineering wannabees to encourage this kind of entomological mysticism. I doubt if this excuse for failure, even as a metaphor, would be accorded the same respectability in any other form of engineering. It is no wonder that many of our colleagues in other engineering fields regard our efforts and our products as the result of some kind of "black art" rather than the well-reasoned fruit of an engineering discipline. RD> There are additional quotes that precede the computer age. But can you find such a reference in the writings of Ada Byron? :) Richard Riehle