Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns
From: Phil Carmody (thefatphil_demunged_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Trevor L. Jackson, III: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Maybe in reply to: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Hank Oredson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 31 Jan 2005 19:20:40 +0200
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
> >> Are the following two, the issue of this debate?
> >>
> >> 1) Given an arbitrary program, prove that an error exists in the
> program.
> >>
> >> 2) Given an arbitrary program, prove that an error does not exist in
> >> the program.
> >
> >They shouldn't be. Decent software engineers shouldn't be writing
> >arbitrary programs.
>
> Most of my bit gods must coded in the nude then. Every first
> coding try was arbitrary. Reproducing bugs is based on educated
> guesses which are arbitrary.
Pull your head out of your bit-god-infested arse just briefly please.
The guys on the MMI certainly weren't writing arbitrary code -
they were writing no-memory-accesses-out-of-place, well-designed
routines.
Maybe on your side of the Atlantic you did things differently,
but we don't like arbitrary numbers as GCDs, for example, and
I prefer the UK way of approaching coding.
Phil
-- If a religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one. -- John Barrow
- Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Trevor L. Jackson, III: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Maybe in reply to: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Next in thread: Hank Oredson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|