Bold! I wonder what leads to this sort of confidence.
> Radical transparency is the only answer. I am convinced that open code, specs and procesees must be requirement going forward.
Yes. Transparency is the only foundation of trust.
honestly just skimming through MIRSA C 2004
> Rule 17.4 (required): Array indexing shall be the only allowed form of pointer arithmetic. Array indexing is the only acceptable form of pointer arithmetic, because it is clearer and hence less error prone than pointer manipulation.
I don't think compliance with such rules really solve things, and in some cases just introduce complexity, e.g there is also rule for never using recursion: Rule 16.2 (required): Functions shall not call themselves, either directly or indirectly
but also, it is easier to judge if a book is good than to write a good book
> Yes. Transparency is the only foundation of trust.
teenagers and corporations disagree :)
I agree that the call stack limit is much more important in environments with tight memory but the rule is about the stack limit, not memory in general.
Edit: for 2. I obviously mean recursion as the class of algorithms, not as the property of the functions used to implement it.
Corporation does not care about life per se, it looks at impact on profit.
Corporation has option to sue offender into oblivion (by thoroughly writing contracts)
> Yes. Transparency is the only foundation of trust.
If there is transparency there is no need to trust. You can verify yourself and if you are verifying yourself, you are not trusting. Trust means believing the output someone told you without following all the trails.
Now, transparency, openness and trails to follow are GOOD, and they should always be there. Because if you don't trust, you can check everything yourself. Or because if you forgot something, or start from scratch, you can go back in time and learn what happened and why and who did what, and have a picture in your mind pretty close to actual reality.
Now, we can argue that after a few iterations where you did check someone/something's output completely due to its transparency, you build trust on it and you will not check it in depth anymore. But you could also trust someone just based on the outcome and not the internal procedure. If the outcome was aligned with the promises and its good enough for you, you end up trusting that person anyway.
Now, it depends what is on the line, even an open-hardware device could have had a routine built into a chip that seeks to set the battery on fire. Do you decap and check the silicon? Dunno all the firmware and indirect every routine?
For almost anything it's impossible to make a thorough check by yourself.
Transparency means the provider enables such actions though. That builds trust.
* regulatory environment includes the possibility that you can find a person and enact violence on them.