|
But how much work the software does is not what makes it remarkable. What makes it remarkable is how well the software works. This software never crashes. It never needs to be re-booted. This software is bug-free. It is perfect, as perfect as human beings have achieved. Consider these stats : the last three versions of the program -- each 420,000 lines long-had just one error each. The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors.
Don't just fix the mistakes -- fix whatever permitted the mistake in the first place.
The solution of how a bug-free software can be written is: Set up a secure process. And if there is a bug - blame the process for the bug.
Well this solution assumes that everyone in the team is a high-standard programmer witha lot of discipline. Every plan has its weak part.
Edit: Fixed a typo.
modified 14-Apr-13 17:07pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I love the sentiment , I always advocate that you reduce bugs by reducing the possibility for the bug to exist . But I am always sceptical when anyone claims to know how many bugs a piece of software has .
|
|
|
|
|
Particularly when that number is zero...
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
|
|
|
|
|
NASA is its own customer. No shifting customer requirements, with very strict *known* operational parameters.
The true cost of 'that software' must run into billions of *tax* dollars. No one could afford their software if it was for general use. imho it's a dumb example to use NASA.
Medical software is also very expensive, but not astronomical. (no pun intended) 
Even more impressive is the fact that NASA developed that code waaaay back in the late 60s or early 70s.
Q. Hey man! have you sorted out the finite soup machine?
A. Why yes, it's celery or tomato.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
