How the Boeing 737 Max disaster looks to a software Developer

Re:How the Boeing 737 Max disaster looks to a software Devel... by softwaredoug on Thursday April 18, 2019 @04:52PM (#19694665)

Yeah and then the specification at that level of specificity IS the code. How do you prove the specification is bug free?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How the Boeing 737 Max disaster looks to a software Devel... by crimsonalucard on Thursday April 18, 2019 @04:57PM (#19694705)

Define what is a bug in a spec? I defined the program to do one thing and one thing only. What does does it mean when I have a bug in my definition? There's a definition for the definition? Makes no sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How the Boeing 737 Max disaster looks to a software Devel... by throwaway2048 on Thursday April 18, 2019 @05:12PM (#19694823)

You can argue that no code ever has bugs by that logic, after all you defined the program to do one thing, and it did it, it was merely human expectation that was in error.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How the Boeing 737 Max disaster looks to a software Devel... by crimsonalucard on Thursday April 18, 2019 @11:49PM (#19696956)

That's what I'm arguing. Code can be proven correct against a formal spec.

However, because we don't do proofs in software, there are bugs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How the Boeing 737 Max disaster looks to a software Devel... by throwaway2048 on Thursday April 18, 2019 @11:52PM (#19696971)

Code is itself a specification.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How the Boeing 737 Max disaster looks to a software Devel... by crimsonalucard on Friday April 19, 2019 @02:56AM (#19697609)

It can be, but generally it is not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How the Boeing 737 Max disaster looks to a software Devel... by aassddffasdf on Thursday April 18, 2019 @05:05PM (#19694769)

It means that the one thing you defined it to do was not the right thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]