This is easily proven incorrect unless you assume overly draconian definitions of "perfect".

```python

print("hello world!")

```

runs exceptionally well. Bullet-proof in all use cases I've needed it.

This is also easily proven incorrect when you start to analyse how “print” works and wether it stands to be improved in any way.

No. No code is “perfect”.

Aye, a draconian view of the "perfect."

As opposed to… the lenient view of “perfect”? Perfection is a binary state, either something is or it isn’t. What is /defined/ as perfect in a given context is subject to change, but the meaning of the word is absolute.

I love that we are debating the platonic perfect form of perfect.

Nobody is earning a living writing hello world programs, and in real programs perfection doesn't exist. Perfection is at best a widely-held opinion.

Two thoughts:

1. Since when do people write code solely for the purpose of earning a living?

2. Yes. I agree that with complex programs, perfection doesn't exist -- mostly a composition paradox issue though, IMO!