4 ms·
I will reply with another Hoare quote, from a paper from 15 years later: > Fortunately, the problem of program correctness has turned out to be far less seriou
by jcelerier 8y ago
I will reply with another Hoare quote, from a paper from 15 years later:
> Fortunately, the problem of program correctness has turned out to be far less serious than predicted. A recent analysis by Mackenzie has shown that of several thousand deaths so far reliably attributed to dependence on computers, only ten or so can be explained by errors in the software: most of these were due to a couple of instances of incorrect dosage calculations in the treatment of cancer by radiation.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/math/1996-hoare.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/math/1996-hoare.pdf
- pjmlp 8y agoExcept that "far less serious than predicted" is not the same as non-existent, and that quote in no way talks about bounds checking, which is the issue being discussed here. In real life, we use safety gloves, seatbelts, elbow and knee protection, helmets, chainsaw cover, gun lock, .... Naturally there are those that think such protections are only for children and an accident will never occur to them, until the day they happen to be part of the statistic. I long for the day that lawsuits for buggy software become a regular activity, only then the industry will actually care to change.
- jibal 8y ago"Except that "far less serious than predicted" is not the same as non-existent" Pure strawman. The statement was that program correctness is far less serious than predicted, not totally benign. "and that quote in no way talks about bounds checking, which is the issue being discussed here" Um, programs that exceed array bounds are not correct, so yes, it does talk about them. [further strawmen not worth addressing]
- pjmlp 8y agoSure, you made it clear where we stand regarding quality.