|
If someone finds a bug, and doesn't let you know of it, how do you attain the perfection for which you strive?
After writing the above counterquestion several times, I had an epiphany. I think the base difference in our views comes not from different beliefs - for we've both said that we recognize the truth in one anothers statements - but from a different concept. I see the programming as a step towards the end, which is providing a stable medium to the players in which the laws of the world are known (gravity causes things to fall, mages get burned at the stake, one who is heavily encumbered will not run as fast as one who is not...).
You see the programming as the end result: Have I accounted for each eventuality the player may try with this function, and how will this function interact with others?
In the former (my view), there exists room for error. Perfectionism is still there, but it is with the understanding that no one can consider everything, and at 150k+ lines of code it is difficult to account for all eventualitys (attributed more to my poor programming skills rather than the size of the program; MS Windows is more than 3million lines of code).
With the latter, the fact that a function you have written is unabusable is proof positive that you have done what you wished. You've won, in that particular case. In others, the players will win, and it is up to you to discern if they have found something for which you did not account.
Both views have merit. But this accounts for the differences in our opinions. Am I wrong?
|