User Tools

Site Tools


citation

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
citation [2012/06/02 16:54]
cedric
citation [2012/06/02 16:58] (current)
cedric
Line 1: Line 1:
 +I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. -- Linus Torvalds (1991)
 +
 +----
 +
 +Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;) -- Linus Torvalds (1996)
 +
 +----
 +
 +Every time I see some piece of medical research saying that caffeine is good for you, I high-five myself. Because I'm going to live forever. -- Linus Torvalds (2010)
 +
 +----
 +
 "Let me start with a well-established fact: by and large the programming community displays a very ambivalent attitude towards the problem of program correctness. A major part of the average programmer's activity is devoted to debugging, and from this observation we may conclude that the correctness of his programs —or should we say: their patent incorrectness?— is for him a matter of considerable concern. I claim that a programmer has only done a decent job when his program is flawless and not when his program is functioning properly only most of the time. But I have had plenty of opportunity to observe that this suggestion is repulsive to many professional programmers: they object to it violently! Apparently, many programmers derive the major part of their intellectual satisfaction and professional excitement from not quite understanding what they are doing. In this streamlined age, one of our most under-nourished psychological needs is the craving for Black Magic, and apparently the automatic computer can satisfy this need for the professional software engineers, who are secretly enthralled by the gigantic risks they take in their daring irresponsibility. They revel in the puzzles posed by the task of debugging. They defend —by appealing to all sorts of supposed Laws of Nature— the right of existence of their program bugs, because they are so attached to them: without the bugs, they feel, programming would no longer be what is used to be! (In the latter feeling I think —if I may say so— that they are quite correct.)" -- From EWD288 "Let me start with a well-established fact: by and large the programming community displays a very ambivalent attitude towards the problem of program correctness. A major part of the average programmer's activity is devoted to debugging, and from this observation we may conclude that the correctness of his programs —or should we say: their patent incorrectness?— is for him a matter of considerable concern. I claim that a programmer has only done a decent job when his program is flawless and not when his program is functioning properly only most of the time. But I have had plenty of opportunity to observe that this suggestion is repulsive to many professional programmers: they object to it violently! Apparently, many programmers derive the major part of their intellectual satisfaction and professional excitement from not quite understanding what they are doing. In this streamlined age, one of our most under-nourished psychological needs is the craving for Black Magic, and apparently the automatic computer can satisfy this need for the professional software engineers, who are secretly enthralled by the gigantic risks they take in their daring irresponsibility. They revel in the puzzles posed by the task of debugging. They defend —by appealing to all sorts of supposed Laws of Nature— the right of existence of their program bugs, because they are so attached to them: without the bugs, they feel, programming would no longer be what is used to be! (In the latter feeling I think —if I may say so— that they are quite correct.)" -- From EWD288
  
citation.1338648870.txt.gz · Last modified: 2012/06/02 16:54 by cedric