OT: Crazy Programming

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 19 May 2002 21:56:08 -0700, Tim Roberts <timr at probo.com> wrote:
>Kragen Sitaker <kragen at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>paul at boddie.net (Paul Boddie) writes:
>>> In other words, some things have to be prioritised so that the whole
>>> system works as intended. With articles "celebrating" cool hacks, and
>>> the like, it's clear that some people prioritise arguably less
>>> important things (in the context of successful real-world systems)
>>> than others.
>>
>>Yes.  For example, the misconception that software must be correct to
>>be useful --- or at least, that correctness is important to real-world
>>success with software --- seems to be quite widespread in some
>>circles.
>
>For something like a 3D game or a spreadsheet, our industry has done a
>fabulous job of convincing the general public that half-assed software is
>the norm, and the best they can expect.  But for elevator control software
>or bullet train software, correctness is VITALLY important to real-world
>success.

By "correctness" you presumably mean it is 100% guaranteed to work 
100% correctly 100% of the time.

But that's an impossible standard, and is not applied to everything 
else, e.g. train hardware or elevator hardware. If trains and 
elevators were over-engineered to the extent that there was no 
conceivable possibility of them going wrong, they would be too 
cumbersome and expensive to be worth using.


-- 
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically 
advantageous for him to believe." 
                        -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
                              Portillo, on soc.history.what-if