Page 1 of 1

Breathalyzers don't actually work?

Posted: 2009.05.14 (23:46)
by scythe

Re: Breathalyzers don't actually work?

Posted: 2009.05.15 (06:17)
by PsychoSnail
Base One, however, did an extensive evaluation, finding 19,400 potential errors in the code.
o.O
It's amazing that that many errors is even possible.

Re: Breathalyzers don't actually work?

Posted: 2009.05.15 (14:14)
by Exüberance
PsychoSnail wrote:
Base One, however, did an extensive evaluation, finding 19,400 potential errors in the code.
o.O
It's amazing that that many errors is even possible.
Unless one error depends on another error. Like you know how you leave out 1 character in your code, and that fills up 2 pages worth of compiller warnings and errors?

Re: Breathalyzers don't actually work?

Posted: 2009.05.15 (17:51)
by t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư
Exüberance wrote:
PsychoSnail wrote:
Base One, however, did an extensive evaluation, finding 19,400 potential errors in the code.
o.O
It's amazing that that many errors is even possible.
Unless one error depends on another error. Like you know how you leave out 1 character in your code, and that fills up 2 pages worth of compiller warnings and errors?
I'm sure they did more than try to compile it and count the number of lines in the output.

Re: Breathalyzers don't actually work?

Posted: 2009.05.15 (19:48)
by Exüberance
Tsukatu wrote:I'm sure they did more than try to compile it and count the number of lines in the output.
Oh, I know that. I just mean that a lot of those errors are probably not completely independant of each other. If it were a compile error, it wouldn't work at all in the first place. This is more of a logic error type thing.

Off-topic: Hey, cool. You can only have nested quotes with maximum depth of 3 now.