From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1c672d5b3cfa54cf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <GarlingtonKE@lmtas.lmco.com>
Subject: Re: "Bugs" (Was: Anyone could give a complete and yet small
Date: 1997/01/14
Message-ID: <32DB9877.34F6@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 209728138
references: <97011113060854@psavax.pwfl.com> <32DA7CB4.456@lmtas.lmco.com>
 <1997Jan13.143803.1@eisner>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; U)
Date: 1997-01-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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