It's pretty obvious that people are reacting to the headline without having actually internalized the content of the post. Fair, I suppose: it was a bit wild of

It's pretty obvious that people are reacting to the headline without having actually internalized the content of the post. Fair, I suppose: it was a bit wild of a title, and the post was pretty off the cuff. This is the bit I really wish people would take away from it, though: > Neither of those is a guarantee I won’t have bugs. (A compiler that could guarantee that would have to be sentient and far smarter than any human!) Neither of them means I can’t intentionally do stupid things that violate invariants in ways that get the program into broken states from the user’s point of view. But both of them give me the tools and the confidence that I can absolutely guarantee that certain, very important kinds of invariants hold. We’re not looking for an absence of all bugs or a system which can prevent us from making any kind of mistake. We’re looking to be able to spend our times on the things that matter, not on minutiae the computer can check for us.