[Ticket#: 2006040510000641] Re: [OT] Articles to read

[David Vaughan]

On 07/04/2006, at 10:25, Garrett Hylltun <garrett at paraboliclogic.com>  
wrote:
>
> What it comes down to is money.
Yes, the cost and benefit analysis of which Richard spoke.

> I'm sorry, but my expectations of software is higher.  I get so  
> tired of
> hearing B.S. and excuses as to why software isn't or can't be bug  
> free.
Software is a creative product of staggering complexity, one whose  
reliability has increased enormously over the years. One way of  
putting it is that the boundaries of capability have been pushed over  
the years while the rise in bugs has been disproportionately low.

> I can accept bugs that slip by undetected
Look at the work being put in by others on the list right now,  
illustrating how hard it can be to define a bug. As I have said to  
you before, without a causal definition, the bug can not be fixed.  
Would you like to contribute to the effort, perhaps, rather than  
lambasting the work of others? Consider it a question of ethical  
behaviour :-)

> How can someone sleep at night knowing they've release software with
> bugs in it?  Don't you feel guilty about it?
>
> My morals and virtues are not for sale.  If I can't do the job right,
> then I'm not doing the job at all!
Why do you develop software, Garrett, since you have just said you  
will never do it? Or is it that you have no commercial software  
product and thus avoid the discovery of many bugs?

David