You're conflating "predictable" with "reproducible".
"Predictable" assumes there is an observer making a guess, but we all live by the knowledge that our assumptions may be wrong. We care less about that, and more about whether the system behaves consistently.
Consistent behavior is either a bug or a feature depending on what was expected. The system just is, man, and that's what we need.
"Nobody sits like this rock sits. You rock, rock. The rock just sits and is. You show us how to just sit here and that's what we need."
Comments
Falsehood People Believe about Programmers:
Programmers think the models they use are perfect.
I’d say this one is frequently true, and is one of the things that distinguishes senior from junior programmers.
Mostly programmers think a system will act predictably given the same inputs. Most of computing doesn't work without that assumption.
You're conflating "predictable" with "reproducible".
"Predictable" assumes there is an observer making a guess, but we all live by the knowledge that our assumptions may be wrong. We care less about that, and more about whether the system behaves consistently.
Consistent behavior is either a bug or a feature depending on what was expected. The system just is, man, and that's what we need.
"Nobody sits like this rock sits. You rock, rock. The rock just sits and is. You show us how to just sit here and that's what we need."
Programmers certainly believe that, but they quickly learn not to.
Unfortunately there are also (senior) programmers who believe that their model is correct and it’s the reality (spec, client, user, etc) that’s wrong.
Let’s be clear though: all of those other things are probably wrong too.