This brings to mind the old phrase, "If it doesn't have bugs, it's
insignificant" ...no excuse, but true none the less.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of Andrew C. Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:06 AM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: Stability of Squeak
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 10:02 AM, robin wrote:
> 
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com>
> > To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: Stability of Squeak
> >
> >
> >> On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 07:31 AM, robin wrote:
> >>
> >>> In my commercial work, I'm used to the idea that even 
> code which has 
> >>> been thoroughly tested, with a seemingly comprehensive 
> set of test 
> >>> cases by the
> >>> developers (exaustive/exhausting testing), will often 
> fall apart under
> >>> seemingly obvious condition when real users first use it.  With 
> >>> squeak,
> >>> it
> >>> seems that the idea is that everyone is developer - the 
> only people 
> >>> who
> >>> are
> >>> 'just users' are newbies.
> >>
> >> Squeak is hardly seeing its "first users" now.  I, too, 
> was a newbie 
> >> at
> >
> > I didn't say "first users" so I assume you're not quoting me there.
> > After
> > any piece of software has been changed, there is the 
> possibility that 
> > new
> > bugs are introduced, or old ones revealed.  I understood 
> squeak to be a
> > software system which is constantly under development.
> 
> Your phrase was "when real users first use it."  I'd like to 
> think, when 
> I started, that I wasn't a virtual user.  Indeed, at the 
> time, it was my 
> very first experience with a Smalltalk system.  Likewise with the 
> several examples I gave.
> 
> Of course Squeak is constantly under development, and if you 
> opt to run 
> the "test pilot" version, you takes your chances.  There are 
> also stable 
> prior versions.  And each and every version of Squeak ever 
> made has bugs.
> 
> Indeed, each and every computer program I have seen that does 
> something 
> non-trivial has bugs.  So far as I can tell, there are only 
> two kinds of 
> software: (1) software with bugs you know about; and (2) 
> software with 
> bugs you don't know about.  There are a few things we do as 
> programmers: 
> (1) development, which introduces both types of bugs; (2) 
> testing, which 
> converts bugs we don't know about into bugs we know about; and 
> maintenance, which converts bugs we know about into bugs we 
> don't know 
> about.
> 
> You may have noted that the Squeak license is warranty-free, 
> and further 
> that nobody suggests that Squeak is free of bugs.  You seemed 
> earlier to 
> be asking about crashing bugs and system freezes.  I noted in 
> response 
> only that I haven't seen much of it, nor have many of the 
> "real users" 
> of my acquantance.  To the extent you have, it would be 
> beneficial for 
> you to report in detail how you caused it.
> 
> >> one time who experienced no ill performance during my 
> initiation.  My 
> >> wife and children have been using Squeak without any catastrophic 
> >> failure as well.  My colleagues at the firm who use my 
> Squeak-based 
> >> patent writing tools have never reported a crash.  
> Sheila's students 
> >> at Terrace Elementary School have likewise managed not to 
> crash the 
> >> VM.  A software-development client of mine adopted Squeak 
> for rapid 
> >> prototyping and they, too, haven't had reported to me any 
> disasters 
> >> (although I haven't really asked them -- I'll check up on 
> this).  Are 
> >> they all developers as well?
> >
> > My understanding (again I could be wrong) was that part of the
> > philosophy of
> > Squeak, and the earlier Smalltalk 80 systems was that anyone could 
> > change
> > them for their own creative purposes, and that the 
> simplicity of the 
> > system
> > was intended to foster this.  I was alluding to this when I said 
> > 'everyone
> > is a developer'.  I do recognize that this doesn't stop people from 
> > using it
> > without ever trying to program it. Perhaps I was too literal in my
> > expression.
> 
> I'm not sure where you are going with this.  You seemed to be 
> distinguishing "real users" from "developers," suggesting that, while 
> Squeak is stable for developers, it is not stable for real users.  I 
> suggested that a range of users, from elementary students to computer 
> illiterate lawyers have shared my experience that the system 
> is fairly 
> stable.
> 
> >> For me, at least, Squeak has been solid as a rock -- among 
> the most 
> >> stable development platforms on which I have worked.  Frankly, the 
> >> instability you are reporting is foreign to me -- I simply never 
> >> experienced it, and neither have the people 
> (professionals, newbies, 
> >> adults and kids) here who are working on Squeak.
> >>
> >
> > I'm very glad to hear it.  My main reason for asking about 
> this was to
> > get
> > an idea of what other people's experiences were.
> 
> That's why I answered the question.
> 
> >>> I'm also aware that without enough information to 
> reproduce a bug, 
> >>> in 99% of cases there's little that can be done - from a 
> scientific 
> >>> perspective it
> >>> might even be said not to exist.  In future, I'll make 
> sure to include
> >>> it.
> >>
> >> We still don't even know your configuration or system version, let
> >> alone
> >> the symptoms you have identified as a crash.  The advice may be as
> >> simple as your having a bad build, or using test pilot 
> software when 
> >> you
> >> shouldn't -- or you may be perceiving crashes that aren't.
> >
> > That's not true, although admittedly I didn't give the most 
> detailed 
> > bug report possible.
> >
> > I DID include the date and version number of the squeak build, the
> > platform
> > (windows - I didn't say which though), what I did to cause the 
> > 'crashes',
> > how the squeak behaved after the crashes, and the squeak process' 
> > behaviour
> > in terms of CPU and virtual memory.  I also put forward 
> some of my own
> > speculation about what I might have done to cause them.
> 
> That's great.  Sorry I missed it.
> 
> > In both cases, the behaviour fitted my definition of a 
> crash. I didn't
> > say
> > the VM itself had crashed. Just that the squeak system had stopped
> > responding.
> 
> OK, I thought you (or perhaps someone else) had made that suggestion.
> 
> > For some reason I'm perceiving your message to be somewhat 
> defensive - 
> > perhaps I'm picking up the wrong tone.  My original query 
> was to ask 
> > about other people's perceptions of the system - not to assert 
> > instability - I've
> > only been using it for a few days.
> 
> I'm not defensive by any means.  But you don't seem to be 
> acknowledging 
> that I have answered your question -- or at least that you 
> are doubting 
> my answer.  My answer, was that with years of experience in 
> the system, 
> I have found it to be astoundingly stable; as have the few 
> dozen or so 
> acquaintances (with a wide range of technology experience) 
> here in Tampa.
> 
> > Nevertheless, for whatever reason, I did experience what I 
> regard as a 
> > couple of crashes.  If that's rare, it means the system is probably 
> > very stable, but I feel a little defensive as it seems to 
> me that you 
> > are putting my experiences into question.
> 
> The stable system is very stable.  The test pilot system varies as a 
> function of time with respect to stability.  New ports are unstable 
> until they cease to be unstable.  All versions of the system 
> have bugs, 
> both of the known and documented, known and undocumented and unknown 
> species.
> 
> I no longer understand with certainty what you mean by a 
> crash, in view 
> of your prior remark.    Your experiences aren't put into question -- 
> although I still have no idea into what problem you ran.  I 
> didn't see 
> your earlier post, so I STILL don't know the configuration 
> version and 
> circumstances of your problems.  Hopefully someone else 
> caught it and is 
> looking into it.  You might spend more time focusing on a 
> particular bug 
> or experience, accept reasonable answers you get to questions 
> you give 
> from those that do have experience.
> 
> It is absolutely the case that Squeak is poorly documented.  
> Therefore, 
> like an adventure game where an unsolved puzzle becomes a 
> dead end, you 
> can find yourself in a situation logically indistinguishable from a 
> crash when all you had to do was to apprehend what was 
> happening, press 
> a button or two and be happy as a clam.  To that end, Squeak 
> "crashes," 
> but not because of any instability, but the unfed and therefore 
> understandable ignorance of new users.  With new publications 
> and better 
> documents being built all the time, this is improving, and 
> that may be 
> the single BEST vehicle for improving newbie stability.
> 
>