From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: dealing with errors (was: "Programming is FUN again") Date: 1998/03/27 Message-ID: <3100020676914073@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 338371778 References: <6e9p0b$h0j@er3.rutgers.edu> <6ec6os$7a@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <6ecbd5$epg$1@client3.news.psi.net> <6f0m6n$71u$1@news.hal-pc.org> <351692EA.41C6@bogus.acm.org> <351A72C3.5CEF1977@badlands.nodak.edu> <3099927027198005@naggum.no> <351BC8A3.7CE38A98@badlands.nodak.edu> mail-copies-to: never Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Brent A Ellingson | It is provably impossible to verify all code. This isn't myth -- this is | fact. Arrogant people like Erik keep believing the stuff they learned in | intro math classes at University isn't real, but simply a bunch of myths. | They will keep believing it is *possible* to verify all code, and will | keep continue to write crappy programs they believe are "provably | correct" and "can't" fail. man, what did verification _do_ to you? and why do you have to make such an incredibly stupid insult just to make yourself feel better? just because you _obviously_ cannot write correct code doesn't mean those who say they can, _and_ back up their position with a ten-year history of code that just _doesn't_ fail, are frauds and liars. I wonder what hurt you so badly, I really do, but I sure am glad it wasn't me. please make sure you catch the guys, though -- your hostility is eating you up. the Department of Informatics at the University of Oslo is perhaps _the_ pioneering site in verification. I can assure you that this stuff is not "intro math classes", but you have nothing to learn from mistakes you don't already know how to handle, right? | That is an example of catching an error you were definately better off | ignoring. ok, so this _is_ the core credo of a religion with you, and I was in error for ridiculing your religious beliefs. I'm really sorry. | The fact that *this* software failure was preventable only obscures the | fact that software failures, *in general*, are NOT preventable. yeah, while you're predicting the future and are obviously infallible in your own eyes, I'm arrogant. I think I'll stick with arrogant. | Trying to verify code is good. Mistakenly believing it is possible to | create "provably correct code" is like believing you can tell the future | by a combination of voodoo and looking at the guts of a slaughtered goat. | It can't be done. Period. I feel deeply sorry for you, but I feel even sorrier for the poor people who might hire you or otherwise stumble into your code. #:Erik -- religious cult update in light of new scientific discoveries: "when we cannot go to the comet, the comet must come to us."