Hacker News Reader

Deploying 100% bug-free code is the Holy Grail of software development.

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.

View on HN

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.

compcert, sel4, etc.

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.

Formal verification doesn't imply waterfall.

Absolutely.

University ideals, versus the real world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com