4 ms·
As 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 —
by taspeotis 10y ago
As 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".