Software Bug
The foundation of a functional computer system is the presence of an operational software. The presence of a flawed software in a computer inhibits correct and expected operation of computer’s program. The failure of a computer program to produce desired results by a user is known as the software bug. There are various factors that result to software bug including the failure by program designers to assess the functionality of the software regarding source codes, its components, and compatibility of the software with operating systems (Junjie & Qing, 2016). The effects of software bug have been detrimental, to the extent of causing loss of patient’s lives on therapy machines, and aircraft accidents.
The process of finding and fixing software bug involves prudent programming in which program developers assess the likelihood of bugs and mechanisms through which they can be solved. Therefore, for software developers and programmers to avoid inefficiency in program functionality, they must come up with a logical error that offers flexibility in the running and performance of a program, which minimizes the occurrence of the bugs. Therefore, innovation in the style of programming is recommended for software programmers so that dynamism in bugs can be confronted from a multifaceted perspective (Sojung & Thompson, 2013). Additionally, the mechanism of defensive programming by program developers is a fruitful means of eliminating bugs through analysis of all conditions and unforeseen circumstances.
The method of code analysis is another successful way through which programmers use to combat potential bugs. The use of code analysis tools has been argued to be among the best means through which experts can identify problems of programmers, which would result in software bugs (Junjie & Qing, 2016). Therefore, the tools are requisite in establishing potential bugs resulting from program developers during the writing of programs. The tools’ major and mostly verifiable assumption is that majority of program developers make mistakes that usually result to software inefficiency and subsequent bug Instrumentation is a key method through which program developers or software experts use counteractive tools that run concurrently as programs run so that bugs can be effectively overpowered in case they happen. Most of the tools for instrumentation are embedded in the codes in the form of statements that act as a solution for predetermined flaws or bugs of software. The monitor of software functionality by these tools has been proved to be efficient in finding and solving the quagmire of bottlenecks in computer programs (Sojung & Thompson, 2013).
Bug management is dependent on two factors; priority and severity. According to Junjie and Qing, (2016), priority in bug management should follow considerations on severity caused by bugs in the system. The harm could be a loss of data, financial loss, or leakage of critical and confidential information. Therefore, depending on the priority, one can choose how fast the process of debugging can start. On the same hand, bugs that result to less severity on firms are not given more attention and priority because of their trivial impacts.
In conclusion, a software bug is a dynamic issue that is changing every day. However, it is a threat that software developers can handle and deal with even before it happens. The embedding of tools that find and fix bugs is the basic method of eliminating bugs in software. Therefore, it is recommendable for software developers to involve program expertise who can employ tools that can assess potential threats from functional programs so that control mechanisms can be devised.
References
Junjie, W., & Qing, W. (2016). Analyzing and predicting software integration bugs using network analysis on requirements dependency network. Requirements Engineering, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p161-184, 24p
Sojung, L., & Thompson, T. (2013). Lessons for Software Development Ecosystems: South Korea’s e-Government Open Source Initiative. MIS Quarterly Executive. Issue 2, p93-108. 16p. 6 Diagrams, 2 Charts, 1
