Except the part about me misunderstanding. Hmmmmm let try to understand what you are saying better then. Nobody can reason conclusively about async software t

Except the part about me misunderstanding. Hmmmmm let try to understand what you are saying better then. Nobody can reason conclusively about async software that relies on dozens of npm projects Indeed, as we've seen, a single simple dependency can break a lot of things, and in general it's not practical to go through all the dependencies in npm and make sure they are ok. And my larger point still stands - Dijkstra's quote is anachronistic "not introducing bugs to start with" Dijkstra (especially after "goto considered harmful") had a habit of making hyperbolic quotes that didn't match what he actually believed. To understand what he actually believed, and what he actually did in his own programs, it's necessary to dig deeper. Fortunately Dijkstra wrote a lot, and he wrote a text book which he used to teach beginning programmers the 'ideal' way to program. In his textbook, it's true, he began by teaching students how to prove program correctness. However, he quickly moved on from that, at one point saying, "we gain nothing here by going through the work of proving this program correct." In other words, he was not trying to tell everyone to program by proof, nor did he do it in his own work; rather, he wanted people to have the proving mindset (as opposed to the "hey, it works, ship it!" mindset). Dijkstra was aware of Knuth's famous quote, "Be careful about using the following code — I've only proven that it works, I haven't tested it." In the OP I tried to show that all three of these programmers have that mindset, but it manifests in strikingly different ways. There are many techniques that can be used, but the underlying principal is the same for all of them. And I think you will agree that NPM is just crying out for a little more formality :)