>>Sorry, but you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with machining tolerances (BTW, I happened to be working in a machine shop when I first encounter the "Quality is Free" concept.) The question is what requirements and what does it cost not to meet those?
>>
>>I'm afraid that this "Lutz Law" is nonsense simply because it never establishes a definition for quality.
>
> Again, I have to say that I think you're actually missing the point of his "laws". He wasn't writing a program, or a dictionary, so yes, he's playing fast and loose with the definition of quality. Symantically, it's not correct. But since a lot of people >DO< equate price with quality (and a more "quality" product closer to perfection), the "law" actually addresses that perception. To that end, too much quality (perfection) can kill you.

If that was his intent, I'd half to agree with you. However, distilling that from his statement is not necessarily easily done, especially when your view of quality is as mine is. Mine came from Philip Crosby (www.philipcrosby.com), who wrote the book "Quality is Free".

> [side note: Do we test our programs until we're absolutely positive that there are no bugs in it? No. Why? Because it's not financially feasible to do so. We attempt to find and fix everything we can but I can guarantee none of us expect the software to be completely bug free. There is a point of diminishing returns - this is what I think this law is attempting to address]

Agreed. However, I should point out that all algorithms should be proved before release. Further, both Structured Programming and OOP came about in order to reduce the occurrances of "bugs" by building re-usable modules/objects, that, once proven don't have to be re-invented.

> Symantically incorrect, but still a valid point using those definitions. The list wouldn't be nearly as interesting to read if it was put together like a legal document with the definitions at the beginning ;) I think it probably is serving it's purpose - we've been talking about it for a few days now.

My problem with his statement is the attitude that it presents. But I do agree that it's made for interesting discussion.