| |||||||||||||
Who will pay for it?Who will pay for it?Posted Oct 31, 2011 16:38 UTC (Mon) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)In reply to: Who will pay for it? by epa Parent article: The embedded long-term support initiative
In the building case: Correctness is feasible to achieve and validate, and the cost of remedying errors is relatively large. In the desk lamp case: Correctness is not merely feasible but trivial to achieve and validate. Software that does what there is currently perceived to be a demand for often lies somewhere between insanely hard and mathematically impossible to achieve and validate correctness of. The cost of remedying an error, on the other hand, is not strongly related to the severity of its consequences. Many disastrous software errors turn out to have trivial fixes. (And, of course, even if your software is provable, all you can prove is that it conforms to the provided specification. Proving that the specification is a correct statement of the requirements, or that the requirements were well-formed in the first place, is a separate problem.)
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||