Timeline for How can developers be assured that their software is fault free?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://sqa.stackexchange.com/ with https://sqa.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 22, 2016 at 10:52 | vote | accept | microwth | ||
| Mar 19, 2016 at 17:32 | comment | added | AdrianHHH | @immibis Please accept my apologies. For many people on Stack Overflow English is a difficult language and not their first language. I try and write clearly and to use appropriate words. You used a word that appears reasonable, I did not remember its definition so I looked it up and found that it expressed something unexpected. Given that Urban Dictionary would you like one of your co-workers to say "Hey Immibis are you rebugging that program?" I would not like that statement said to me. | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 10:15 | comment | added | AdrianHHH | @immibis OK, thank you. Please see the link to "bebugging" in my answer. See also this page that suggests "rebugging" is a derogatory term applied to work done by some software developers, urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rebugging | |
| Mar 18, 2016 at 8:50 | comment | added | AdrianHHH | @immibis Can you explain what you mean by "They didn't call it rebugging?" please. | |
| Mar 17, 2016 at 21:04 | comment | added | Noah Sussman | @PeterMasiar If you define bug as not-meeting-the-specification, then you can with great effort prove that there are no areas where the program doesn't conform to the specification. What you can not do is prove that the specification itself does not contain any errors. This is an epistemological constraint, not a technical one. The observation that this is the case goes back to (at least) Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, published in 1953. | |
| Mar 16, 2016 at 22:27 | comment | added | Peter M. - stands for Monica | Yes it can be bug-free see wikipedia article from my answer (for some definition of "bug" and "free"). Proving system correct is jut lots of work, buggy systems are cheaper. | |
| Mar 16, 2016 at 17:11 | comment | added | Luaan | Of course, static analysis can be buggy :P In fact, this applies to any form of testing and analysis - in the end, someone wrote that software, someone assembled the proofs, someone forgot to account for this one platform where 1 + 1 doesn't always equal 2... there's plenty of opportunities for bugs. Manual testing isn't exempt, of course. | |
| Mar 16, 2016 at 11:27 | history | answered | AdrianHHH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |