John,

>Hi Jim,
>
>>I really am always amazed when software errors are so wilfully tolerated when errors in virtually any other kind product are definitely not tolerated. My guess is that it is us, the developers, who are the primary proponents for this stand and it likely has much to do with our own needs to have ass-cover for our own problems.
>
>Surely you have evidence that the errors which precipitated our quick fix were willfully tolerated? I don't like the implication that we know of major bugs when the product is released and release it anyway. It's just not true.
>
>There is no such thing as the zero-bug piece of software. Some bugs are just easier to find than others.

Either you misunderstood or I was unclear.

I was referring to those who said 'all software is going to have errors' and not only wilfully accept that but also appear to use that as justification for the delivery of their own buggy applications too.

I think, in the prior paragraphs of this specific reply of mine, I was quite fair and sympathetic of MS' general circumstances for its development/testing difficulties. I have no idea how you connected anything I wrote with even a hint that the VFP Team knew in advance of the (now known) bugs.

But to answer your point directly:
Do I think for even a second that MS or the VFP Team wilfully deliver a product with known bugs in it?. . . definitely not.

Do I think it is possible to produce zero-bug software? Yes, I do, and yes, I feel that MS is (at least since W2K was well under way) working toward that objective.

You see, even though many cars are produced with defects, it is a fact that many more cars are produced that function perfectly properly for their users throughout their useful life. With cars, every one is a new production and yet they can do it repeatedly. With software, every one after the final is an exact replica of the final. And I truly think that the design/development/production of a car is at least as complex as the design/development/production of any piece of software. Because all of the complexity of a piece of software is concentrated in a single place it just looks far more complicated. Think about how many lines of code are likely used to design a car (and each of its parts) and its production and test facilities and then add to that the actual building of the machinery needed to design, test and produce the parts for the car and add to that the coordination to actually have the parts at the right place at the right time to build that car.

JimN