>Michael,
>
>>>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..
>>
>>Hi Doug,
>>
>>I think you've made some excellent points, which inspires me to add my 2 cents. There's no sense in asking whether there will be "defect-free software" without also asking "for how long", but this is a rather theoretical debate.
>>
>>A more practical question is how to build more robust, reliable systems, to which you offered some sound advice. I would add this: modular design. I'm sure we could think of other important principles and guidelines that belong on the list.
>>
>>While it seems unrealistic to expect perfection in any complex system, people have good reasons to be intolerant of bugs. The practical question is how to make the cycle of testing, bug reporting, and fixing more efficient. Clearly we have a long way to go in this department.
>>
>>Mike
>
>I trust that each party will perform to their professional best.
Doug,
I have faith that you and others will be open to constructive suggestions for improvements, whomever they may come from.
Mike
