If a file you wish to view isn't highlighted, and is a text file (not binary), please
let us know and we'll add colourisation support for it.
Part-time psychologist for friends, awesome guy, C#, C++ on Qt & .Net Developer, Rock music & Hardware enthusiast.
Working in Software Development since 2010 he started as an Apprentice within a big Medical Diagnostics company. Starting out with .Net Development, he did also Jobs on Qt/C++ and IT Project consultation, including Testing with Qt Test, Ranorex and the Microsoft Test Tools for .Net.
In his free time he enjoys Rock music, Hardware & graphics programming and having a good time with friends.
Additional appearances: part-time psychologist for friends, awesome guy, developer, hardware techie and man in the middle of the attention.
What would it mean to Software Developers if they have Pugs in their code, instead of bugs?
Can't we just call bigger errors in source code "Pugs" and the smaller ones "Bugs"?(In the end it would make sense since Pugs are actually bigger than bugs!)
We would have an idea of how bad the errors in the source code are, just by calling it "puggy" if it is a complete rubbish (or puggish??) or calling it "buggy" if there are only details to be fixed.
Think about it!