[stonemetal12]

>If I expect a program to do something (eg. handle IO errors) that its code says very clearly that it doesn't, that's not the programs fault.

Is there no such thing as a bug then? The program does what the code says so every "misbehavior" and crash is expected behavior.

[usrbinbash]

There is a difference between a program with a specification/documentation outlining what it should do, and one that doesn't have a spec.

AFAIK, hello.c doesn't have a spec, so the code is the spec. If I am using it, I have to read the code to know what it does.

[admax88qqq]

So if I don't write a spec, I have no bugs. Got it.

[usrbinbash]

Where did I say that?

I said if a software doesn't have a spec, the code IS the spec.

If I hand out a sheet of paper saying "the program returns X", but running it returns Y instead, the program is buggy.

If I hand out a piece of code which says "return X", and someone runs it expecting it to return Y, thats not the codes problem.

[ericHosick]

This Porsche has a design flaw: I can only go 22,500 kilometers before I have to replace the tires.

This VW bus has a design flaw: I can't pull more than 1G on the race track.

[dancemethis]

Speak for yourself on the bus...

[parksy]

If we're going to reductio ad absurdum then OS's shouldn't let programs run if they interact with a device and don't explicitly handle exceptions for those devices. The OS is just a program and if it allows programs to crash it, isn't that the OS's fault?