So sorry if my comments were misinterpreted - Tom's is one of the few names that I recognize so I know he's on board.
I am concerned, however, with your suggestion that "modern languages" reduce bugs. They might make it easier to avoid bugs, or make it easier to spot bugs, but the only thing that will reduce bugs is analysis, practice, analysis, practice and more analysis. Sorry if that seems cynical, but the great Admiral Grace Hopper and her team, for instance, introduced the idea of subroutines back in the early 1950s in order to help reduce bugs - we later migrated from subroutines to object libraries and a wide variety of other approaches. The point is not that these aren't welcome improvements and all, but I think we tend to depend way too much on the tools/languages/whatever than they deserve (however good they may be). The other thing I alluded to was the sheer magnitude of creating any sort of regression testing suite for something like LO (to say nothing of the space shuttle or your ATM machines that are mostly running on Windows XP). Having "users" beat on the product is certainly helpful as well, but certainly not a comprehensive form of testing or validation. I certainly wasn't suggesting or implying that Word (for instance) hasn't addressed some bugs that have been present in their product for over a decade. One reason I like LO is simply that someone seems to be listening - a necessary (however insufficient) condition for improving things. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Possible-LibreOffice-Duplex-Printing-Bug-tp4104713p4104812.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
