3 ms·
In workplace safety, at least in my country, there is a commonly accepted level to aim for: No accidents. It makes sense in a way. If you don't aim for zero, w
by aapoalas 3y ago
In workplace safety, at least in my country, there is a commonly accepted level to aim for: No accidents.
It makes sense in a way. If you don't aim for zero, what do you aim for? A few hands lost in a month? A few crushed fingers?
In this viewpoint I'd argue that aiming for a 98% reduction is a bit absurd: "Yeah we had an issue but it was the only one this month so it's within our budget."
Of course, goals are not the same as realised results. Getting a 98% reduction should be considered a huge, huge win. The next step should then be "what can we do to get rid of the rest?" Or at least the alternative seems odd: "We got this far, job done, nothing useful to do anymore."
Of course, the means will change. If C++ guarantees full memory safety next month, then the next steps after that won't be more memory safety but something else.
- pizlonator 3y agoThat's a really good way of stating what I believe. :-) If C++ had memory safety next month then the next step would be to add stronger types. Once memory safety is a thing, you can start to add types that describe contracts and then you can ensure lots of interesting logical safety properties that aren't memory safety.
- Georgelemental 3y ago> there is a commonly accepted level to aim for: No accidents. But you also balance that goal against practical reality. For example, you could end workplace accidents by outlawing work and having everyone starve to death, but that's not done because the costs are too high.