[simias]

I agree, I think this format works when the subject matter is trivial enough that it's easy to construct counter examples yourself once the contradiction is pointed out.

The "Name" version is a good example of that, I can easily see how most of the examples on this list can be falsehoods.

On the other hand in TFA some of the affirmations leave me more perplexed. For instance, regarding color conversion: "converting from A to B is just the inverse of converting from B to A". I wonder what's meant here. Is it just a matter of rounding or is there more to it than that?

The catch 22 here is that if you understand this list then chances are you already knew about most of these gotchas.

So yeah, a pretty bad format. Now we just have to write "`Falsehood programmers believe about X` considered harmful".

[dom0]

> I wonder what's meant here. Is it just a matter of rounding or is there more to it than that?

Many colour spaces are non-overlapping, ie. one colour space has colours a different colour space simply doesn't have, so converting between them is often lossy and thus non-invertible.

[dragonwriter]

> Many colour spaces are non-overlapping, ie. one colour space has colours a different colour space simply doesn't have

Wouldn't that be overlapping but non-coextensive? Non-overlapping would be no colors in common between color spaces, which would be odd.

[dom0]

Yes. I didn't realize that difference between my intermediate language and the output language of these comments :)