Re: "Bugs" (Was: Anyone could give a complete and yet small

Re: "Bugs" (Was: Anyone could give a complete and yet small

[Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93]

Richard Riehle <rriehle@NUNIC.NU.EDU> writes:
>  Following on the proposition stated by Mr. Maggio, we may ask the
>  question, "Does all software contain mistakes?"
>
    Oh.. I don't know. It would seem to me that one could write a
    sufficiently small program which contained no "mistakes" -
    provided one was real careful about stating the requirements. Does
    anyone doubt that a "perfect" program could be written to satisfy
    the requirement: "Output the result of adding 2 and 2"?

    I think after you get to a certain size in a software project,
    "mistakes" are inevitable - we are only human, after all. And of
    course one can always start debating "that's not a bug - it's a
    feature!" or "it's not a bug in the software - it's a bug in your
    requirements!" just to obfuscate the issue a little.

    MDC

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer    ATT:        561.796.8997
M/S 731-96                                      Technet:    796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP                           Fax:        561.796.4669
P.O. Box 109600                                 Internet:   CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600                  Internet:   CONDIC@FLINET.COM
===============================================================================
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

        --  Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
===============================================================================

Re: "Bugs" (Was: Anyone could give a complete and yet small

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <32DA7CB4.456@lmtas.lmco.com>, Ken Garlington <GarlingtonKE@lmtas.lmco.com> writes:
> Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93 wrote:
>> 
>> Richard Riehle <rriehle@NUNIC.NU.EDU> writes:
>> >  Following on the proposition stated by Mr. Maggio, we may ask the
>> >  question, "Does all software contain mistakes?"
>> >
>>     Oh.. I don't know. It would seem to me that one could write a
>>     sufficiently small program which contained no "mistakes" -
>>     provided one was real careful about stating the requirements. Does
>>     anyone doubt that a "perfect" program could be written to satisfy
>>     the requirement: "Output the result of adding 2 and 2"?
> 
> Output - in what base? to what device? :)

Those are minor details.

I can show any program to be bug-free if you let me do the specification
after the fact, especially if I can continue to revise the specification.

At worst, if the program is inconsistent from run-to-run, I can specify
it as a pseudo-random number generator :-)

Larry Kilgallen

Re: "Bugs" (Was: Anyone could give a complete and yet small

[Ken Garlington]

Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93 wrote:
> 
> Richard Riehle <rriehle@NUNIC.NU.EDU> writes:
> >  Following on the proposition stated by Mr. Maggio, we may ask the
> >  question, "Does all software contain mistakes?"
> >
>     Oh.. I don't know. It would seem to me that one could write a
>     sufficiently small program which contained no "mistakes" -
>     provided one was real careful about stating the requirements. Does
>     anyone doubt that a "perfect" program could be written to satisfy
>     the requirement: "Output the result of adding 2 and 2"?

Output - in what base? to what device? :)

--
LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or
http://www.lmco.com

Re: "Bugs" (Was: Anyone could give a complete and yet small

[Ken Garlington]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> In article <32DA7CB4.456@lmtas.lmco.com>, Ken Garlington <GarlingtonKE@lmtas.lmco.com> writes:
> > Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93 wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Riehle <rriehle@NUNIC.NU.EDU> writes:
> >> >  Following on the proposition stated by Mr. Maggio, we may ask the
> >> >  question, "Does all software contain mistakes?"
> >> >
> >>     Oh.. I don't know. It would seem to me that one could write a
> >>     sufficiently small program which contained no "mistakes" -
> >>     provided one was real careful about stating the requirements. Does
> >>     anyone doubt that a "perfect" program could be written to satisfy
> >>     the requirement: "Output the result of adding 2 and 2"?
> >
> > Output - in what base? to what device? :)
> 
> Those are minor details.
> 
> I can show any program to be bug-free if you let me do the specification
> after the fact, especially if I can continue to revise the specification.

This only says you can generate perfect _specifications_, not perfect
programs.
Surely you don't contend that a program is perfect just because it meets
its
specification?

> At worst, if the program is inconsistent from run-to-run, I can specify
> it as a pseudo-random number generator :-)

Better yet, classify it as a partial CPU test. That way, it doesn't even
have to
produce random results!

> 
> Larry Kilgallen

--
LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or
http://www.lmco.com