(Continued from previous message)


Nope, it doesnt often work like that. And all that is doing is talking
about how robust the code is, particularly to the inevitable variations
in the data its working on. Really good code is often the result of an
inspiration on an approach which really is intrinsically bullet proof,
particularly WRT the alg. Some approaches are bullet proof, others arent.

BL> Bugs are mostly oversights, not errors in the computer itself.

Yes, the vast bulk of them are indeed silly stuff which when you can
focus on the area which is stuffing up your reaction is 'shit, how
fucking obvious, what a dill'. Not all tho. There is a whole class of
problem found in the testing stage where you just assume a particular
alg is viable and it just plain aint, you have had a brain fart and
havent considered one possibility which actually does occur in the real
data being processed. And at times that makes the alg totally unusable.

There are ALSO a few which really are due to the machine. That Pentium
bug is an example of that. Computers are far far more complex than any
other electronic device and they inevitably always have imperfections
which can at times fang your arse severely.

BL> With more complex code, I would concede your point.

A PKT>QWK is plenty complex enough to see the problem. Even a PKT
joiner can be, tho usually isnt.

--- PQWK202