3 ms·

Maybe it has something to do with most software not only being not right but not being wrong either (I’m paraphrasing Wolfgang Paul). We do put a lot of effort

Maybe it has something to do with most software not only being not right but not being wrong either (I’m paraphrasing Wolfgang Paul). We do put a lot of effort into writing correct programs for some definition of correct. But a lot of our specifications don’t include things that aren’t obviously wrong like, “not leaking secrets,” wrong. I share the enthusiasm of SPJ who said, “it’s amazing that it works at all let alone so well.” It’s easy to forget that that little white box you type a few words into is more impressive in scope and complexity than the tallest buildings humans have built. And yet it is so largely invisible! I think the more important question is how much longer have we got left before regulators and insurers demand we assume more liability for things when they do go wrong.

gonzo41 7y ago
I actually think that the FOSS movement and licensing is really progressive in this space. This thing comes with NO Warranty etc is really great because you own the risk of the systems you build. If only that got surfaced more to the users so they realized that a T&C page isn't really protection for anything. Rather than force devs to use formal methods, I'd really like it if software got to the point where regulators and insurers demand that we treat personal information like radioactive waste and try and handle the least amount possible.
- agentultra 7y ago
  > Rather than force devs to use formal methods I don't think professional liability would require all developers to use formal methods any more than it would require all practicing software developers to become licensed engineers. It may require companies to hire a licensed engineer to sign off on projects and it could require those engineers to be insured so they may want to use formal methods on a risky project to keep their rates down. The end result, I think, is the same: pressure to do better by the standards of the state of the art and not skimp on privacy and security.

gonzo41 7y ago

I actually think that the FOSS movement and licensing is really progressive in this space. This thing comes with NO Warranty etc is really great because you own the risk of the systems you build. If only that got surfaced more to the users so they realized that a T&C page isn't really protection for anything. Rather than force devs to use formal methods, I'd really like it if software got to the point where regulators and insurers demand that we treat personal information like radioactive waste and try and handle the least amount possible.

agentultra 7y ago
> Rather than force devs to use formal methods I don't think professional liability would require all developers to use formal methods any more than it would require all practicing software developers to become licensed engineers. It may require companies to hire a licensed engineer to sign off on projects and it could require those engineers to be insured so they may want to use formal methods on a risky project to keep their rates down. The end result, I think, is the same: pressure to do better by the standards of the state of the art and not skimp on privacy and security.