Re: Software Quality in Science

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

Colin Paul Gloster schrieb:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
> |---------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |"[..]                                                                |
> |                                                                     |
> |The programmers still have to specify the right switches, and pay    |
> |attention to the results, and know how to fix them, which is a       |
> |political/management/skill issue, not a language design issue.       |
> |                                                                     |
> |I know from personal experience that there is a satellite about to be|
> |launched who's control code has many remaining C warnings. Sigh."    |
> |---------------------------------------------------------------------|
> 
> Yes, people are idiots.

For making decisions (e.g. about ignoring warnings), programmers just have
a proven set of rules.  This set is defined by a certain rationality,
which is bounded, and not just technical:  it is also imposed by
tradition, knowledge, and management. It does sometimes make sense
---post hoc at least.  If this situation helps you live a peaceful life
with your family and friends, why bother with messy warnings at work?

At work, if the leading staff, adequately payed, thinks you should not
ignore warnings, then have them say when, and when not, to treat warnings
as errors. Or, at least have them delegate responsibility for defects
to you. OK, the latter is an unrelated issue.