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."

Comments

Paper doesn't mention open source model

[gasjews]

I'm not sure how much credibility can be lent to any kind of study on the software development process that does not include the open source (OSS) model. By its nature, having more eyes look over you work rather than depending on a fixed and closed system of code assurance finds and fixes bugs faster and implement new features. This is why Windows and UNIX are constantly playing catch up to the Linux platform. I remember reading a study on Google's weblog that essentialy endorsed this as a philosophical concept (that applies to much more than just code writing). I don't know who works for the NSA these days, but I would venture to say that the people who work are Google are probably collectively the brightest and wisest folks on the planet.

Linux, Firefox, and OpenOffice are some of the best software on the planet. I think is a good practical testament to the OSS philosophy.

This is the reason why I use Linux and demand that everything I purchase, consume, use, or buy uses or depends on a open source model.

Re:Rules of thumb

[DeathToBill]

You mean smitten, not smote. One is the past participle, to other is the past tense.