Slashdot Mirror
When Bugs Aren't Allowed
Coryoth writes "When you're writing software for an air traffic control system, military avionics software, or an authentication system for the NSA, the delivered code can't afford to have bugs. Praxis High Integrity Systems, who were the feature of a recent IEEE article, write exactly that kind of software. In "Correctness by Construction: A Manifesto for High-Integrity Software" developers from Praxis discuss their development method, explaining how they manage such a low defect rate, and how they can still maintain very high developer productivity rates using a more agile development method than the rigid processes usually associated with high-integrity software development."
When open source developers figure out this method.
If someone sent a copy of this to Micro$oft? Would any of them read or comprehend it? It could make a difference in the version after Vista.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Please mod me down flamebait, too. It is unfair of me to not recieve the same consequence for holding the same opinion.
What do you mean? The Iraqis voted to be invaded and slaughtered?
Having read Beck and Fowler's Planning Extreme Programming I get the impression that the XP model is less about bug-free code and more about driving your coders to suicide by showing them how annoying a cubicle-mate "partner programmer" can be. How employee nervous breakdown equates to profit, well, I still don't know, but a lot of companies sure seem to like the model.
I think you mean 43.
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
What an ignorant wanker you are. A little research wouldn't be a bad thing, before you open your mouth proving how uneducated you are.
No, really, go do some reading. I'll wait. What's that? You can barely read? Let me throw some information your way:
The Kuwaitis had been regularly breaching agreements with the rest of OPEC, by selling more oil than their treaties allowed, cheaper than the other countries were prepared to. You'll probably try to argue something about a "free market" in spite of the existing treaties between the OPEC countries, as you appear to be a naive, barely educated American who believes the shit he's fed by the propaganda machine. Even America has a protectionist market, but that's a whinge and bitch session from you for another day.
The Kuwaitis treated the rest of the Arab population as inferior to themselves, creating a large amount of bad feeling in their general direction.
The Iraqis had reason to believe that the Kuwaitis were drilling on a steep angle, taking oil from the Iraqi oil-fields, rather than their own. We're talking millions of dollars of oil, not a few paltry barrels.
Here's the kicker: the Iraqi ambassador *ASKED* the United States if they had a problem with an invasion of Kuwait. The response from the American ambassador? Basically, go ahead: "We have no interest in border disputes."
Who's the fuckhead now? In case you can't work it out, in spite of the obvious sarcasm, it's you, you ignorant, brain dead cunt.
Here's a novel idea! Do some research like I did - read political journals, read analyses by various authors, even go as far as reading Bush sr talking and writing on the fucking invasion! You'll find that there's little pretense of invading for the good of the people. It was quite clearly acknowledged as eliminating a threat to a vital oil supply.
Bush Sr even went as far as arguing against an occupation of Iraq, for the fear of a long term engagement in that country, that would cost billions of dollars and the lives of many Americans. Here's a link to the Memory Hole:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
It makes for interesting reading, if you can hold of lunging for the dictionary and the theasaurus for long enough to understand it.