Program logic bugs vs input/environmental errors

Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sat Oct 4 23:09:06 PDT 2014


On 10/4/2014 10:24 PM, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 October 2014 at 22:24:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> And the "specification" itself may have flaws as well, so again, there are NO
>> guarantees here whatsoever. The only thing proofs do in an engineering context
>> is decrease the likelihood of problems, just like any other engineering strategy.
>
> Machine validated proofs guarantee that there are no bugs in the source code for
> any reasonable definition of "guarantee". There is no reason for having proper
> asserts left in the code after that.
>
> If the specification the contract is based on is inadequate, then that is not an
> issue for the contractor. You still implement according to the spec/contract
> until the contract is changed by the customer.
>
> If an architect didn't follow the requirements of the law when drawing a house,
> then he cannot blame the carpenter for building the house according to the
> drawings.

Carpenters can be liable for building things they know are wrong, regardless of 
what the spec says.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list