> It also means that you get to define 'bug-free' as 'implements the standard to the letter',
That doesn't make it any better. The standard itself cannot be bug-free.
Actually here's another one of them uncomfortable truths:
* You can't guarantee the correctness or reliability of a program by specifying on paper what it should do.
It's a bad approach anyway, and results in stupid programs; stupid in the sense that they will be hard to use, hard to maintain, hard to fix, hard to evolve, etc.
This truth maybe uncomfortable to many people, including bosses and managers and authority figures.
But, I personally actually find this truth very comfortable. Being the lazy slacker that I am, it allows me to justify my approach to programming.
That doesn't make it any better. The standard itself cannot be bug-free.
Actually here's another one of them uncomfortable truths:
* You can't guarantee the correctness or reliability of a program by specifying on paper what it should do.
It's a bad approach anyway, and results in stupid programs; stupid in the sense that they will be hard to use, hard to maintain, hard to fix, hard to evolve, etc.
This truth maybe uncomfortable to many people, including bosses and managers and authority figures.
But, I personally actually find this truth very comfortable. Being the lazy slacker that I am, it allows me to justify my approach to programming.