John,

>Hi Jim,
>
>As others have stated, that's a theoretical impossibility. The best you can hope for is that the bugs in any software are so deeply buried and so difficult to draw out that you'll likely not see them.
>
>Now here's a conundrum for you...how would anyone know that a piece of software was defect-free? What's the measuring stick? And what is a defect?

Interesting thought. The problems is this IMO: Time in linear. At some point on that linear line you may, with a certain amount of authority state, "The product is bug free". However, as others have mentioned the product does not live in a static (time-wise) environment. There are always new factors being introduced; New Operating Systems, Various & assorted product upgrades unrelated to VFP (Rick Srahl just got 'bit' by an upgrade to IE for example) that you cannot foresee, and so forth. That some products continue to work year after year is, I think both a testiment to their author's skills and the fundamental soundness of that particular product for that particular task.

Time introduces new and unforeseen factors.

I also think this is a huge point in justifying the notion of writing basic non-gizmo'd code.



>
>I think what you're trying to say is that software should be defect-free insofar as it's reasonable operation in an expected environment and within the boundaries of it's inputs.
>
>>Well I'm still betting that defect-free software will be the standard in our lifetime.

Jim, I think that the standard should always be "defect-free software". Whether or not it's realistic or cost-effective to 'get there' is an entirely different issue I'd think..

Best,


DD

A man is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep for that which he cannot lose.
Everything I don't understand must be easy!
The difficulty of any task is measured by the capacity of the agent performing the work.