every bug has its own time..

Every bug has got a lifetime for itself. This is going to be my proposition tonight. Not that I felt it today or right now. I ve felt it quite a many number of times and wanted to write on it (and this concept of writing being spontaneously felt works only for those who had all the time for that).
I got the time now (May be... nay.. always, every germ-thought-for-a-write-up also has its own lifetime!) and so am putting my thoughts as words. We somehow try to fix some really headache bugs thinking day and night on that (this attributes to ur fresher-to-the-industry too as I ve observed) and it does get fixed. But, not when you wanted it to. Later, sometimes much later, that it starts sounding trivial to you as you might not have done much to catch it. Here, I would like to tell what extent of generalization I ve applied on the word "bug". This could be an issue the solution to which you need to find (not exactly a fix to a wrong solution, I mean). A reforming of your code to make it work clean etc. anything. not essentially a wrong-to-right jump!
Thats when you feel, you being the coder still are not able to find what's wrong in your code as it grows in size. Your helplessness is sometimes perplexing. But thats only for a moment. The experience-storage facility implemented up in our brain, then on, tells u in future that "hey buddy! you r of course helpless!". And, thats when you get such a magnitude of complacency, loss of reasoning and lawlessness that would very much result in a very similar essay as this one.
Consider this. You are the God and the program you write is a simpleton who seems to go the way God shows to him. Thats when the bug thing comes up in its mind and screws up the whole process of goody-goody codes and equivalent results.

But, you do know that God (here, I mean the actual God, if he exists) is not able to control the way world moves with its bunch of simpletons! (you, me and the rest of a**holes!)

Don't you see the analogy? (look back.. those words.. 'god', 'simpleton', 'goody-goody', 'bug', 'screws up', 'equivalent results' etc.)
Thats a lot of noir stuff, in disguise! huh? ;)

Sometimes you are the crow and sometimes the statue! Sigh!

what is genius?

We (I and my friends) got into an argument one fine day as to what 'actual' genius is (I warn you, the erudite guys we are, we never try to arrive at a solution/explanation). My friend was peeved at the level of physics, as a subject, that was taught to us in school-time (essentially Newtonian) which essentially was quite "disproved" in this century by Einstein and likes. He said - "We were all fooled man. go and read recent research in quantum physics anywhere. U ll know physics is 'actually' nothing of what Newton said or even Einstein for that case.." That Newton/Einstein fooled us (or rather himself). what he said then is not 'remembered' exactly here. but the point was not 'fooling' but being wrong. The earlier theories were many times intuitively guessed, he ridiculed. That he has fairly good amound of physics up his head should be easily inferred from the fact that he is aware of the latest happennings of disproving of what Einstein said during his times. But what he seemed to miss was, according to me, "everybody will be disproved in physics" (put in real crude fashion!).
Anyway getting back... The earlier theories were many times intuitively guessed, he ridiculed.
Thats when I actually got hooked in after thought-wise-loitering around the fringes of the "topic" (we used to fondly call our discussions so), thanks to my poor knowledge in physics.
"In fact, Intuition (that whether I meant 'correct' intuition is not answerable now without references to Rashomon!) is Genius", I asserted. Anything gotten out of pure theory already laid out or derived out of existing theory is 'ordinary' (compared to the intuitive kinds!)
I seriously felt so. That I myself found it an intuitive thing was not able to give any formal proof. But to prove anything, I go to maths (which i find so closely resembles life). Talking about proofs and intuitions, one person who comes to my mind is Srinivasa Ramanujan. He was so used to 'finding' (yeah, finding!) mathematical relations that, he actually could not offer proofs to most of his theorems. Some he felt was very obvious that the proof went without thinking.(something like 'goes without saying' for mundane people like us). And some he could not even if he tried to go to lower level debug trace of his mind. It was his friend/associate who took the burden of proving some of his theorems. He found the genius in Ramanujan (thats another level of intellect, u know? identifying genius, like what i am yapping about now). Ramanujan was a genius. Not because, many of his yesteryear number theory theorems are being used currently and are actually rite. Even if some of the mathematical theorems/figures/relations (what he did was not essentially some useful things, u know?. he suddenly thinks of whats the sum of factors of n! which had no reason to be thought upon but for pure pleasure of maths!) were wrong or will be proved wrong. That he conceived all of them in his mind is what makes genius. If the idea conceived is wrong, perhaps, thats flawed genius; But Genius, nevertheless!

do i write at all?

If anybody looks at the timestamp of the prev post, the question i posed in the title (to myself) seems inevitable!

heck! i dont seem to write at all...

P.S.: I didn't know that George Orwell had a similar write-up (titled "Why I write?") in his book "Such, Such Were the Joys". and was overjoyed to read it here. So hope I am going Orwell's way... ;)) His childhood uncannily resembles mine too! :))

why do i write?

why do i feel the necessity to write?

indulgence?
interest?
express myself?
kill time?

suddenly i feel all the above mean the same shit!

i ll talk later!