It sounds like you aren't very clear on what a "runtime error" is yourself, or what role they play in software development, which I guess is why you didn't see anything wrong with the ostensible definition in the SWEBOK. You could probably learn a lot from reading my longer comment carefully enough to understand it.
The audience of the SWEBOK is not only, or even primarily, learners. This is explained in the preface.
Thinking my comments are pompous—because they're written in a more formal register than you're accustomed to reading, I suppose—is no excuse for your invective.
I didn't read the whole document, but, as you can see from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41916612, I did generate a fair random sample of 10 half-pages of it and read and summarize them. All of them were similarly incoherent and full of serious errors of fact that can only be attributed to profound incompetence. That's an adequate basis on which to conclude that the whole thing is bad. Moreover, everyone else in this thread commenting on specific parts of the document that they've read has similarly damning comments. (Except you, but at this point I have, I think, ample reason to discount your opinion.)
>It sounds like you aren't very clear on what a "runtime error" is yourself, or what role they play in software development, which I guess is why you didn't see anything wrong with the ostensible definition in the SWEBOK.
Of course I know exactly what a runtime error is. The definition we're talking about is fit for purpose.
>The audience of the SWEBOK is not only, or even primarily, learners. This is explained in the preface.
OK fine. But you do in fact have to learn it for the purpose of getting an engineering license. It would be inappropriate to load the document with details that are not relevant to nearly all programmers, or details that are couched in such formal language that they would be inaccessible to average engineers with 4 year degrees. Nothing in your comment is that advanced but certainly a PhD-level lawyer take on what constitutes a runtime error is beyond the scope of what the document is for, despite the ambitious name.
>Thinking my comments are pompous—because they're written in a more formal register than you're accustomed to reading, I suppose—is no excuse for your invective.
The issue is not that your comments are formal, but that you think nobody but you knows what a runtime error is. When people tell you that they do in fact know what it is and that the definition offered is adequate, you insist on practically writing a stuffy paper about why you think it doesn't cover this or that.
>All of them were similarly incoherent and full of serious errors of fact that can only be attributed to profound incompetence.
This is pompous. I don't care to read more of your nonsense. Frankly, the notion that someone would get to be the guy (or committee) who would write a textbook like this for a licensing body without having ample competence in the field (as opposed to "profound incompetence") is so outlandish that I cannot take it seriously. That applies doubly to your opinion, which has been pathologically pedantic.
>Moreover, everyone else in this thread commenting on specific parts of the document that they've read has similarly damning comments.
I'm not talking about the rest of the document. Most of the comments I read on here are pure garbage so appealing to plurality is not getting you anywhere.
>Except you, but at this point I have, I think, ample reason to discount your opinion.
Be honest, you never took my opinion seriously. After your first comment I had ample reason to discount your opinion too. My instinctive reaction is to assume you have some kind of mental disorder that makes you overanalyze things. But maybe you are just a snob. It's hard to diagnose this over the Internet, and I don't really care.
The audience of the SWEBOK is not only, or even primarily, learners. This is explained in the preface.
Thinking my comments are pompous—because they're written in a more formal register than you're accustomed to reading, I suppose—is no excuse for your invective.
I didn't read the whole document, but, as you can see from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41916612, I did generate a fair random sample of 10 half-pages of it and read and summarize them. All of them were similarly incoherent and full of serious errors of fact that can only be attributed to profound incompetence. That's an adequate basis on which to conclude that the whole thing is bad. Moreover, everyone else in this thread commenting on specific parts of the document that they've read has similarly damning comments. (Except you, but at this point I have, I think, ample reason to discount your opinion.)