3 ms·
No that isn't the assumption. And when the article does discuss project deadlines it most certainly--and with cited references--talk about the trade-offs presen
by clawrencewenham 17y ago
No that isn't the assumption. And when the article does discuss project deadlines it most certainly--and with cited references--talk about the trade-offs present in the real world.
The article was written to discuss ways of reducing bugs independent of any other need.
Furthermore, although you "can't think of a single situation in which it is ever the case", I myself actually picked one where a $4 billion machine with six lives at stake was an excellent example of when it DOES matter what the quality of the software is.
- danbmil99 17y agook then, in 99.999% of all applications I would claim that shooting for virtually bug-free code is a sure-fire prescription for business failure. BTW why did Nasa downgrade their redundancy to 2 systems in the Shuttle? I recall reading that during the lunar missions, they had 5 computers on board, all independent implementations of the same spec.
- clawrencewenham 17y agoI understand your hyperbole, but the stress isn't necessary. The market will reveal where it wants quality and where it doesn't. Also, the Shuttle has always had 2 independently written systems, never five. There are five computers running software written to the same spec, but the physical redundancy wasn't the scope of the article.