NOTE: **use Perl;** is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

chromatic

(email not shown publicly)

http://wgz.org/chromatic/

(email not shown publicly)

http://wgz.org/chromatic/

Blog Information [technorati.com]
Profile for chr0matic [technorati.com]

Friday June 06, 2003

07:41 PM

If 80% of software developers are brilliant enough to write better code faster, cheaper, and more efficiently than they can reuse existing code, why does software still suck so much?

Me, I'm wearing my dubious pants.

Full

Abbreviated

Hidden

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.

## It sucks because ... (Score:3, Insightful)

Software still sucks because our software design abilities do not grow at the same pace as our hardware design abilities. We try new things, we experiment, but "engineer" is certainly not a term that is rightfully applied to programmers. We're some weird amalgam of engineer, artist, and con-artist, all rolled into one. Personally, I suspect that until we get to the point where we can start offering formal proofs that our programs are correct, we're still going to limp along -- though we'll limp faster all the time.

Reply to This## Re:It sucks because ... (Score:3, Interesting)

I suspect that until we get to the point where we can start offering formal proofs that our programs are correct..From what little I remember of my formal methods classes, it's not possible to prove program correctness. The Halting Problem [wikipedia.org]

I try not to think too hard about formal methods in case I have another Z Notation triggered flashback.

I think the real gains will come from not treating programming as something done in a vaccum and working on better management and user involvement.

## Re:It sucks because ... (Score:3, Informative)

There's actually a fair amount of research in functional programming languages such as Haskell about proving program correctness. While granted, there are certain things which cannot be provably correct (as demonstrated by the Halting Problem), the aim of this research is to either develop formal mathematical proof systems for programs, or to calculate programs from mathematically precise specifications. Unfortunately, GÃ¶del had the cheek to prove that any system that contains basic mathematics

## haskell again (Score:1)

/s

## Re:haskell again (Score:2)

Pardon me for recommending myself :), but you can check out this thread about functional programming [perlmonks.org] that I started on Perlmonks. I give a couple of brief examples in Haskell, though MJD has some far more interesting comments in the thread.

I certainly recommend checking out Haskell. It's an interesting language, though it's not widely used.

## Re:haskell again (Score:1)

## Re:It sucks because ... (Score:2)

While granted, there are certain things which cannot be provably correct (as demonstrated by the Halting Problem), the aim of this research is to either develop formal mathematical proof systems for programs, or to calculate programs from mathematically precise specifications. Unfortunately, GÃ¶del had the cheek to prove that any system that contains basic mathematics can lead to statements that are true, but unproveable, thus ensuring that this research cannot be perfect.While the Halting Probl

## Slashdot Post Quality++ (Score:2, Funny)

------------------------------

You are what you think.