4 ms·
Oh, I can play this game too: Why don't we make software without bugs? if you do software in an intelligent way there's no need to create bugs. Of course every
by pablasso 10y ago
Oh, I can play this game too: Why don't we make software without bugs? if you do software in an intelligent way there's no need to create bugs.
Of course everyone strives for better processes —at the end of the day, that means more revenue— is just that those problems seem easier to solve from the outside.
- taspeotis 10y agoAs an extreme example: NASA has done a pretty good job of making software without bugs [1]. 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. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
- hyperpape 10y agoKeep going, why don't we all write software the way NASA does? (Also, it's just an analogy. I think perfect hiring would be much harder than bug free software).
- na85 10y agoBecause companies are interested in profit; not top-quality software. Anyone who tells you differently is deluded or lying.
- taspeotis 10y agoThat's why it's an extreme example. I don't know if it's possible for anyone to answer this question but: does any organisation have a hiring process that's 5000:1 better than the average equivalent, like NASA's 5000:1 software defect rate?
- alexeiz 10y agoI wouldn't be surprised if NASA had a different definition of "error" than a typical "bug" in commercial software. My video player plays every single mpeg/avi/mkv I through at it. Yet it has dozens if not hundreds of serious bugs. I just doubt those bugs fall under the NASA's definition of "error".