> I’m slowly coming around to the idea that if it works, I’m good with that.
A.k.a. "The concrete didn't crumble when I hit it with a hammer."
Process quality has been a thing for ages because it is essential.
A.k.a. "The concrete didn't crumble when I hit it with a hammer."
Process quality has been a thing for ages because it is essential.
Except it’s about 1000 “hammers” (aka tests), x 9 different architectures, x 2 different (a reference and a production) variants, and x 3 different optimisation levels. Every time I find something that slipped through, it gets at least one test written to cover it in the future. My main time-sink is the hours it takes to run the ‘gate’ before a release across the test-farm. And that’s after I’ve been playing with it myself for a while, pushing corner-cases through whatever I’ve been working on.
And who decides what hammer to use, or do you even know what hammer is used? 1000 toy hammers from walmart or temu don't mean anything.
Based on a solid 6 months or so of testing, probing for weaknesses, and building a test to keep the system on the straight and narrow after finding a problem.
do I think the compiler is perfect ? No. No I don't. Is it as good as I can make it ? Why yes, yes it is.