nhaliday + heavyweights + aphorism   7

One week of bugs
If I had to guess, I'd say I probably work around hundreds of bugs in an average week, and thousands in a bad week. It's not unusual for me to run into a hundred new bugs in a single week. But I often get skepticism when I mention that I run into multiple new (to me) bugs per day, and that this is inevitable if we don't change how we write tests. Well, here's a log of one week of bugs, limited to bugs that were new to me that week. After a brief description of the bugs, I'll talk about what we can do to improve the situation. The obvious answer to spend more effort on testing, but everyone already knows we should do that and no one does it. That doesn't mean it's hopeless, though.

...

Here's where I'm supposed to write an appeal to take testing more seriously and put real effort into it. But we all know that's not going to work. It would take 90k LOC of tests to get Julia to be as well tested as a poorly tested prototype (falsely assuming linear complexity in size). That's two person-years of work, not even including time to debug and fix bugs (which probably brings it closer to four of five years). Who's going to do that? No one. Writing tests is like writing documentation. Everyone already knows you should do it. Telling people they should do it adds zero information1.

Given that people aren't going to put any effort into testing, what's the best way to do it?

Property-based testing. Generative testing. Random testing. Concolic Testing (which was done long before the term was coined). Static analysis. Fuzzing. Statistical bug finding. There are lots of options. Some of them are actually the same thing because the terminology we use is inconsistent and buggy. I'm going to arbitrarily pick one to talk about, but they're all worth looking into.

...

There are a lot of great resources out there, but if you're just getting started, I found this description of types of fuzzers to be one of those most helpful (and simplest) things I've read.

John Regehr has a udacity course on software testing. I haven't worked through it yet (Pablo Torres just pointed to it), but given the quality of Dr. Regehr's writing, I expect the course to be good.

For more on my perspective on testing, there's this.

Everything's broken and nobody's upset: https://www.hanselman.com/blog/EverythingsBrokenAndNobodysUpset.aspx
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4531549

https://hypothesis.works/articles/the-purpose-of-hypothesis/
From the perspective of a user, the purpose of Hypothesis is to make it easier for you to write better tests.

From my perspective as the primary author, that is of course also a purpose of Hypothesis. I write a lot of code, it needs testing, and the idea of trying to do that without Hypothesis has become nearly unthinkable.

But, on a large scale, the true purpose of Hypothesis is to drag the world kicking and screaming into a new and terrifying age of high quality software.

Software is everywhere. We have built a civilization on it, and it’s only getting more prevalent as more services move online and embedded and “internet of things” devices become cheaper and more common.

Software is also terrible. It’s buggy, it’s insecure, and it’s rarely well thought out.

This combination is clearly a recipe for disaster.

The state of software testing is even worse. It’s uncontroversial at this point that you should be testing your code, but it’s a rare codebase whose authors could honestly claim that they feel its testing is sufficient.

Much of the problem here is that it’s too hard to write good tests. Tests take up a vast quantity of development time, but they mostly just laboriously encode exactly the same assumptions and fallacies that the authors had when they wrote the code, so they miss exactly the same bugs that you missed when they wrote the code.

Preventing the Collapse of Civilization [video]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19945452
- Jonathan Blow

NB: DevGAMM is a game industry conference

- loss of technological knowledge (Antikythera mechanism, aqueducts, etc.)
- hardware driving most gains, not software
- software's actually less robust, often poorly designed and overengineered these days
- *list of bugs he's encountered recently*:
https://youtu.be/pW-SOdj4Kkk?t=1387
- knowledge of trivia becomes more than general, deep knowledge
- does at least acknowledge value of DRY, reusing code, abstraction saving dev time
techtariat  dan-luu  tech  software  error  list  debugging  linux  github  robust  checking  oss  troll  lol  aphorism  webapp  email  google  facebook  games  julia  pls  compilers  communication  mooc  browser  rust  programming  engineering  random  jargon  formal-methods  expert-experience  prof  c(pp)  course  correctness  hn  commentary  video  presentation  carmack  pragmatic  contrarianism  pessimism  sv  unix  rhetoric  critique  worrydream  hardware  performance  trends  multiplicative  roots  impact  comparison  history  iron-age  the-classics  mediterranean  conquest-empire  gibbon  technology  the-world-is-just-atoms  flux-stasis  increase-decrease  graphics  hmm  idk  systems  os  abstraction  intricacy  worse-is-better/the-right-thing  build-packaging  microsoft  osx  apple  reflection  assembly  things  knowledge  detail-architecture  thick-thin  trivia  info-dynamics  caching  frameworks  generalization  systematic-ad-hoc  universalism-particularism  analytical-holistic  structure  tainter  libraries  tradeoffs  prepping  threat-modeling  network-structure  writing  risk  local-glob 
may 2019 by nhaliday
Answer to What is it like to understand advanced mathematics? - Quora
thinking like a mathematician

some of the points:
- small # of tricks (echoes Rota)
- web of concepts and modularization (zooming out) allow quick reasoning
- comfort w/ ambiguity and lack of understanding, study high-dimensional objects via projections
- above is essential for research (and often what distinguishes research mathematicians from people who were good at math, or majored in math)
math  reflection  thinking  intuition  expert  synthesis  wormholes  insight  q-n-a  🎓  metabuch  tricks  scholar  problem-solving  aphorism  instinct  heuristic  lens  qra  soft-question  curiosity  meta:math  ground-up  cartoons  analytical-holistic  lifts-projections  hi-order-bits  scholar-pack  nibble  the-trenches  innovation  novelty  zooming  tricki  virtu  humility  metameta  wisdom  abstraction  skeleton  s:***  knowledge  expert-experience  elegance  judgement  advanced  heavyweights  guessing 
may 2016 by nhaliday
Work hard | What's new
Similarly, to be a “professional” mathematician, you need to not only work on your research problem(s), but you should also constantly be working on learning new proofs and techniques, going over important proofs and papers time and again until you’ve mastered them. Don’t stay in your mathematical comfort zone, but expand your horizon by also reading (relevant) papers that are not at the heart of your own field. You should go to seminars to stay current and to challenge yourself to understand math in real time. And so on. All of these elements have to find their way into your daily work routine, because if you neglect any of them it will ultimately affect your research output negatively.
- from the comments
advice  academia  math  reflection  career  expert  gowers  long-term  🎓  aphorism  grad-school  phd  scholar  mathtariat  discipline  curiosity  🦉  nibble  org:bleg  the-trenches  meta:research  gtd  stamina  vitality  s:**  info-dynamics  expert-experience  heavyweights 
april 2016 by nhaliday

bundles : growthmetanovelty

related tags

abstraction  academia  advanced  advice  ai  algebra  algorithms  analytical-holistic  aphorism  apple  arrows  assembly  big-list  browser  build-packaging  c(pp)  caching  career  carmack  cartoons  chart  checking  civilization  commentary  communication  comparison  compilers  complex-systems  composition-decomposition  computation  conquest-empire  contrarianism  correctness  cost-benefit  coupling-cohesion  course  cracker-prog  creative  critique  cs  curiosity  dan-luu  darwinian  data-structures  debugging  desktop  detail-architecture  diogenes  discipline  egalitarianism-hierarchy  elegance  email  ends-means  engineering  error  expert  expert-experience  facebook  flux-stasis  formal-methods  frameworks  functional  games  generalization  geometry  giants  gibbon  github  google  gowers  grad-school  graphics  grokkability  grokkability-clarity  ground-up  gtd  guessing  hardware  heavyweights  heuristic  hi-order-bits  high-variance  history  hmm  hn  humility  idk  impact  impetus  increase-decrease  info-dynamics  innovation  insight  instinct  internet  intricacy  intuition  invariance  iron-age  iteration-recursion  jargon  judgement  julia  knowledge  language  lens  letters  libraries  lifts-projections  linear-algebra  links  linux  lisp  list  local-global  lol  long-term  math  mathtariat  mediterranean  meta:math  meta:research  metabuch  metal-to-virtual  metameta  methodology  microsoft  moments  mooc  move-fast-(and-break-things)  multi  multiplicative  network-structure  nibble  nitty-gritty  novelty  old-anglo  org:bleg  os  oss  osx  overflow  parsimony  path-dependence  performance  pessimism  phd  pic  pls  plt  poetry  pragmatic  prepping  presentation  problem-solving  prof  programming  q-n-a  qra  quotes  random  reflection  rhetoric  risk  robust  roots  rust  s-factor  s:*  s:**  s:***  scholar  scholar-pack  sci-comp  skeleton  soft-question  software  stamina  state  stories  strategy  strings  structure  success  sv  synthesis  system-design  systematic-ad-hoc  systems  tactics  tainter  tech  technology  techtariat  the-classics  the-trenches  the-world-is-just-atoms  thick-thin  things  thinking  threat-modeling  trade  tradeoffs  trends  tricki  tricks  trivia  troll  turing  types  universalism-particularism  unix  video  virtu  visual-understanding  visuo  vitality  von-neumann  webapp  wisdom  wormholes  worrydream  worse-is-better/the-right-thing  writing  zooming  🎓  🦉 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: