Alex,

>>Gerry,
>>
>>>>>"Theoretically" it is possible to have bug free code. Given enough time, _anything_ is possible; eg. "Big Bang".
>>>>
>>>>Nope. Impossible to _prove_. Impossible to test in all contexts on all systems under all conditions. Even your example. However, I did qualify my comments to Jim by saying a program of sufficient complexity to be useful.
>>>
>>>I'll take it on faith and continue to work with those who feel the same way, imperfect though we may be.
>>
>>Interesting.. Ed Leafe (an avowed athiest whom I greatly admire) and I (what was that, oh yeah.. "Bible thumping maniac" <g>) often have butted heads over this and both he and I usually arrive at the point where he admits his position is taken on faith, as is mine of course. I think the 'trick' to these kinds of issues is to never allow one's self to take or use a position (take your pick) as an excuse for avoiding thinking and reasoning.
>
>
>No. Doug, let's not start that again! At least not outside Chatter.

Not to worry.. I was just making an illustration.

Here's a little of the 'bigger picture' as I see. 'Trust' or 'Faith' are an integral 'glue' of societies. The corrolary to trust is the contract. I trust that Microsoft will continue to produce products I can use. Microsoft 'trusts' its internal projections and various analysis' projections. I trust you will stop at the red light and you trust I won't run the red light either.

We've been discussing the notion of whether or not we can get to bug-free code. We trust the developers, as well we should, but we all also I would think want to keep a clear eye on reality - that is, what is really happening. It strikes me that some here have an easier time trusting Microsoft. The word 'trust' seems to me to be a huge issue and IMO if Microsoft is smart they will (not that they haven't) make sure to not violate the trust of the cimmounity. To the degree that they do they will damage themselves I'd think.