BCS wrote:
An executable that never works and fails with a resonable error message
at startup is *loads* better than one that either silently runs
incorrectly (generates bad results) or erratically fails. I see a
*major* difference.
Not just a major difference, but a fundamental one.
A failure that happens obviously and repeatably is fundamentally
different from a failure that goes unnoticed or is not repeatable.
A basic principle of developing robust systems is to make any failures
obvious. That's why, for example, airplanes have things that must be
removed before flight attached to big red flags that hang outside. You
don't really want to find out after you're airborne that your pitot
tubes still have the dust cap on!
