Is anyone willing to pay for it? Is there any non-trivial code that's been deployed that has been bug free?
I mean, supposedly NASA paid $1,000 per line of code and still got 0.11 defects per 1,000 lines. By that metric, windows would cost $40 billion to develop, but it would still have 4,400 defects in it.
Yes, as DanWaterworth has pointed out, people have written large projects with entirely bug-free code (in the sense that it verifiably implements a formal specification). The way these projects are developed is very different from the process described by this article -- a lot of time is spent writing formally-verifiable proofs of correctness.
I'm definitely not advocating throwing out agile and embracing waterfall. I like the ability to iterate quickly. I just think we seem to be taking "move fast and break things" a little too seriously in terms of breaking all the things. Everything in moderation.
Re:Investigating Higher Quality Software
by DanWaterworth on Friday January 16, 2015 @11:39AM
(#8899919)
Formal verification doesn't imply waterfall.
Re:Investigating Higher Quality Software
by DanWaterworth on Friday January 16, 2015 @04:22AM
(#8897907)
compcert, sel4, etc.
Is this really true? Judging by their decisions, most people's Holy Grail is more like something reasonably good and shipped on time. 100% bug-free code is already possible, but few are willing to pay for it.