←back to thread

Why Companies Don't Fix Bugs

(idiallo.com)
177 points foxfired | 4 comments | 07 Apr 25 20:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
esafak ◴[08 Apr 25 03:56 UTC] No.43618222[source]▶
It depends. Some other reasons:

1. It's an enterprise product and the economic buyer doesn't know or care about bugs as much as checklisted features.

2. The company is not connecting the impact of fixing bugs to their bottom line. Or they are and estimate the impact to be low.

3. The code base is due for a rewrite so it would be a waste.

4. It's a side bet not worth the extra resources.

replies(6): >>43618291 #>>43618343 #>>43618422 #>>43618825 #>>43618896 #>>43619003 #
1. BuyMyBitcoins ◴[08 Apr 25 04:25 UTC] No.43618343[source]▶
In my experience there is also a fifth possibility: If client is unaware of the bug, would “fixing it” lead to them filing a ticket because the application now behaves differently than expected?

I’ve also encountered several “load bearing bugs” where subsequent integrations/workflows were designed to accommodate the bug. Sometimes this was because the bug was known but couldn’t be fixed at the time, or the developers assumed the program was working correctly and accommodated the bug thinking it was expected behavior.

Therefore fixing the original bug would raise questions about what else needs to be updated as well.

replies(2): >>43618573 #>>43618708 #
2. worthless-trash ◴[08 Apr 25 05:24 UTC] No.43618573[source]▶
I like to call that category of bugs "landmines". Hidden till you step on them, then all hell breaks loose.
replies(1): >>43620230 #
3. jaza ◴[08 Apr 25 05:51 UTC] No.43618708[source]▶
Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1172/
4. SOLAR_FIELDS ◴[08 Apr 25 10:50 UTC] No.43620230[source]▶
Never underestimate the power of the steady state of the system. Sometimes inaction is better than perfection :)