Return-path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chain.digitalkingdom.org Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:12:38 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTbyl-0000b7-E3; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:12:19 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:11:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTbyM-0000ai-NM for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:11:54 -0800 Received: from mail-iw0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTbyF-0000Vd-UV for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:11:54 -0800 Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so1084698iwn.40 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:11:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.177.6 with SMTP id bg6mr955141icb.173.1292598707140; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:11:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunflowerriver.org (c-68-35-167-179.hsd1.nm.comcast.net [68.35.167.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 14sm1054611ico.8.2010.12.17.07.11.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:11:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:11:42 -0700 From: ".alyn.post." To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: defining "debug" Message-ID: <20101217151142.GF32499@alice.local> Mail-Followup-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org References: <20101217133000.GA32499@alice.local> <20101217142814.GC32499@alice.local> <4D0B7A8D.5060708@snell-pym.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D0B7A8D.5060708@snell-pym.org.uk> X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 1600 Lines: 45 On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 02:58:21PM +0000, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote: > On 12/17/10 14:28, .alyn.post. wrote: > > Is there a hint between these two at a more fundamental definition? > > > > If we have a reading fault finder and a computer program fault finder, > > what is a fault finder? > > I think there's a worthy distinction between fault *finding*, fault > *diagnosis*, and fault *fixing*; "debug" in computer circles tends to > refer to the latter two, and either users or QA/testers get the first > job :-) > > And all of these things can be specialised to computers with a bit of > {sampla}. > Good, yes. I was thinking of debugging as the specific act of investigating a program when the behavior is not matching one's expectation. In that sense, I would be attempting to define fault diagnosis according to the here presented lexicon. Is fault fixing any different from the act of writing a program? Can fault fixing and program writing have the same definition? I can see that fault finding is worth having a working definition for, at least so as to to compare any definition of fault diagnosis. {cfisisku} most closely maps to the idea of fault finding. In that case, what would I use for diagnosis? Something with troci seems appealing in this case, "try conclude, try change, &c." That begins to fit nicely with Oren's suggestion. Do we have several notions here, with cfisisku (or some variant) expressing the idea of a QA/tester and {(rafsi "troci" *)} expressing the idea of debugging/diagnosis? Can you make a better suggestion? -Alan -- .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi