Re: Program bugs and Game bugs

[Stavros Robert Karatsoridis <skaratso@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu>]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:

<some stuff removed>


>      The pothole-- i.e. the OS bug-- is avoidable.

>      You are the one in control-- i.e. the Decision Making aspect of the
> program.

>      Swerving around the sign-- a CALL to SetTSPtr which may trigger the
> bug-- is a decision _you_ make. If your car responds as it should-- the
> Syntax and Logic are correct-- you car will go around the sign-- CALL
> SetTSPtr is executed-- and there is a chance that you will hit the pot
> hole-- OS bug-- lose control and crash-- system crash, Beep!

True.

>      Strictly speaking, a program which makes the CALLs you intend for
> it to make, uses BCC, BCS, ... branches to make the expected decisions,
> etc., is "bug-free". From what little I've seen of the program,
> Wolf-3D's code is very 'clean' and easy to follow. It may well be
> "bug-free". This, however, was never at issue.

>      To say that "Wolf-3D has a bug" is _not_ the same as saying
> "Wolf-3D's program is buggy".

Slightly flawed, see below.

<more snipped>

>      On the other hand, users running the standard OS on a typical
> system can often determine whether or not a game has major flaws because
> "game" = the game's observable performance. If the programmer chooses to
> have his/her program CALL a buggy OS routine and the game crashes, it is
> quite proper to say that the "game has a bug". Programmer choices are an
> embedded feature of any game.

Here's the problem.  I don't think anyone knew that the OS contained the
bug until the program was written.  If the people who wrote Wolf 3D
had known about the bug beforehand, they probably would have worked around
it.  However, I think that the bug in the OS was discovered after the
program was written.  In this case, the game is not the one with the bug,
and it is wrong to insist that it is, even though it can be worked around
by changing the program itself.  

>      If you don't want your Game to have a bug, don't CALL one.

You have to know about the bug first.  People were just following Apple's
programming conventions.  It wasn't until the program was released that
the bug in the OS was discovered, as far as I know.

>>   Perhaps the car builder should call and applogize to you because you
>> hit a pothole. (Deven Atkinson)

>      No. The driver should apologize to his/her passengers, stop blaming
> the street, and be willing to admit that he/she made a mistake.

On the other hand, the "driver" in this case, did not know there was a
pothole in this case.  Since Sheppy and Burger Bill did not know there was
a bug, they made no mistake, so it is NOT their fault.

>>   We are lucky to have W3D. (Deven Atkinson)

>      Very definitely! Wolfenstein 3D is the best IIgs game in many
> years. I've had loads of fun playing.


>      I know very little about GUPP. GUPP does appear to have great
> potential. A critical factor is the extent to which GUPP (or any other
> set of user-generated OS patches) is adopted by users. This, in turn,
> will depend upon the willingness of developers to document the new
> patches and how well the patches perform once installed.

Perhaps Nathan could work out an arrangement to distribute GUPP with Wolf
3D, once the version which patches the bug in the OS is ready.  Then there
would be no excuse for people who run Wolf 3D to not have the patch
program needed for the OS, especially since Apple is not going to help us
at all.

> Rubywand

I am not trying to flame you, I think maybe you did not consider some of
the points that I brought up above.

Stavros

--
Stavros Karatsoridis               (skaratso@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu)
Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine
First Year Medical Student, Class of 2001