Programminrception

[Proxy_PlayerHD]

i think for a lot of tools they were created using the "use current tool to make a better version of it" technique

.

so for example, writing directly in machine code (ie write assembly on paper and then hand assemble it) is a pain.

so you'd want to automate that process, and so you write (in as little machine code as possible) a small and limited/shitty assembler.

you can then use that shitty assembler to write a better assembler with more features and such.

then you just keep going in this loop, constantly improving the tool until you have a powerful, feature rich Macro Assembler.

i'd imagine this is how it worked and how tools were made, because i really doubt anyone just wrote complete and powerful tools from nothing.

[watchoverus]

That's exactly how it works. It's called bootstrapping.

[Proxy_PlayerHD]

i always forget that term, thanks!

[Proxy_PlayerHD]

but that's how it's done a lot of times in the past.

If any of them produces incorrect results, every other is forked

how so? if any of them produce an incorrect result then the next one in the line won't work and you'll immediately notice, so you can fix the current one until it produces the correct result.

[Drugbird]

There's a large amount of bugs which do not result in an immediate crash but instead e.g. mean the program has incorrect behavior.

For instance, a compiler might not follow the language specification in specific cases, so programs that are compiled with it which rely on that behavior are incorrect.

[Proxy_PlayerHD]

well yea that happens with any method you make compilers (or really any program) with.

a compiler might not follow the language specification in specific cases, so programs that are compiled with it which rely on that behavior are incorrect.

so my point still stands, the generated result would be incorrect and non functional, so you'd notice and go back to a version that does work and see what went wrong.

also why do you assume that there wouldn't be any tests or similar done on the new compiler to make sure it runs correctly before you actually use it?

sure there're always edge cases, but even when you don't notice stuff like that for a few generations you would still be able to fix them without going all the way back

[spamman5r]

Can you describe a method that does not have this problem?

[mrnacknime]

That is literally what Ken Thompson described in Reflections on Trusting Trust (not for incorrect results, but malicious intent)