Almost every commercially successful product I've worked on has been known to be wrong at every point in its useful life. I've worked on a lot of microservices that had no known bugs for most of their deployed life, but they were simple parts of more complex systems that did have known bugs. The computing world is built top to bottom mostly out of programs that are broken.

If this had not been possible, the industry would have gone the way Dijkstra advocated, with mathematical rigor applied to all programming.

Queue pedantic counterexamples.

Anyway, in this day of just-in-time software we're not going in that direction any more.

What direction is that? The direction of correct software?

Right. Mostly-correct and on-time is all we're getting paid for. That's what agile is all about.

Hmm, so no floating point math ever, only use arbitrary precision? As far as I know most 3D games do correct-enough math because it'll be replaced in a couple frames anyway.

Of course not. Correctness doesn't mean that everything has to be perfect. It means that things work as defined. A C program should operate as specified.