Re: [OT] ALSA userspace API complexity

Marcin Dalecki
2006-01-06T02:19:22Z

On 2006-01-06, at 02:49, Martin Drab wrote:

>> which is precisely just that - bug free. There are mathematical
>> proofs running
>> for hundreds of pages,
>> which are just valid.
>
> Yes, I know. That, however, still doesn't necesarilly mean that it
> has to
> be completely error free. (An error must not necessarily mean a
> complete
> screw-up.)

For example: The original proof from Gödel about "die Vollständigkeit
des
Prädikatenkalküls zweiter Stufe und anderer Systeme" runs for about
80 pages.
It is completely BUG FREE. And the method of gödelisation used in it
pertains
very much to the activity associated with programming. I dare to say
that it
is intellectually more demanding by virtue of an magnitude. Therefore
it simply
doesn't occur to me why there should be any natural law prohibiting
anybody
from writing bug free software.

> Well, I'm moving in an environment of nuclear energy, physics, and
> mathematical modelling a bit for quite some while. And I know, that
> you
> can never be absolutely certain that any (reasonably complex)
> software is
> completely error free.

Ahhh physics... OK. Look, crappy engineering is just that. There
really isn't
much more to say about it. So please forgive me if I beg to differ
and don't
chime in to the chorus of the lame and react like an allergic to claims
to the contrary.

> Anyway, I guess we're quite by far OT with this. So I think we
> should just
> leave it at that, and let everybody draw their own conclusions to
> their
> own best knowledge. Sorry for bothering with this.

Yes indeed.

PS. Please go find the bug in TeX and cash-in on the money...