Posted on 07/19/2008 3:01:10 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick
LONDON: European researchers are working on mathematical foundations of programming to create fault free software in the future.
People are remarkably tolerant of software that goes wrong, but when it comes to faulty cars or TV sets, they would insist that they be set right without much ado, the researchers said.
"The software industry is still very immature compared to other branches of engineering," says Bengt Nordström, computer scientist at Chalmers University, Göteborg.
"We want to see programming as an engineering discipline but it's not there yet. It's not based on good theory and we don't have good design methods to make sure that at each step we produce something that's correct."
Nordström is for rethinking the whole approach to software design. The usual approach is to validate a programme via a lengthy testing process. Instead, he would like to see a design philosophy that guarantees from first principles that a programme will do what it says on the box.
The key lies in an esoteric reformulation of mathematics called ‘type theory' based on the notion of computation. It is not that simple, of course, but so promising is type theory that since 1989 the EU has been funding a string of projects to develop it under the ‘Future and Emerging Technologies Programme'.
Nordström was coordinator of one of the projects, TYPES, which fosters co-operation on the topic among researchers at 15 European universities and research institutes, along with those at 19 associated academic and industrial organisations.
Cars and TV sets are faulty all the time. That’s why recalls were invented. Anything people make that has more than 1 part has a chance of failure in both design and execution. Anybody that thinks that anything out there is fault free has simply learned to ignore the faults.
1. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you'd have to buy a new car.
2. Occasionally your car would just die on the motorway for no reason, and you'd have to restart it. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this, restart and drive on.
3. Occasionally, executing a maneuver would cause your car to stop and fail to restart and you'd have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this too.
4. You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you bought a "Car 95" or a "Car NT". But then you'd have to buy more seats.
5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was twice as reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive--but it would only run on five percent of the roads.
6. Thru 25. CLICK HERE
And with regular car makers making cars we get screws that will punch holes in gas tanks and spark making a fire and killing the occupants. Mirror motors that spark and make fires killing the occupants. And instructions to under inflate the tires causing them to wear unevenly and explode killing the occupants.
Yeah the software industry has sooooo many flaws.
Wow. It's so promising that a bloated government bureaucracy has been funding it for 19 years and it's contributed absolutely nothing practical to the field of Software Engineering. That is impressive...as a con job.
Yeah yeah yeah. They’ve been working on the “mathematical foundations of programming” for decades. And developing theories of design for the same length of time. Even if the program works perfectly, if the people who decide what it is supposed to do don’t understand the business the program is supposed to support, or don’t want to commit to a way of doing business, the system still won’t work. So what else is new?
Does a moth in a relay count?
I thought the UK had a fighter where the SW had to be ‘proven’ bug free?
Bug-free software is possible. Here is an example, in BASIC:
10 END
Ahhh, more comments about how broken S/W engineering is. Too bad the cited source is about 20 years behind. There is a well proven approach for provably correct code...its just to slow and too much overhead.
Nice one! Although most might need to spend a few minutes in Google to get the reference :)
Foolproof, and incapable of error. O-kay.
The real problem with software is that it is written by people who have absolutely no or little expertise in actually using the applications they are programming. An example is MS Word, a terrible piece of $hit, if you ask me. Word Perfect was much, much better. Same goes for almost any of the other $hit MS puts out. The programmers know nothing of what they program - only the mechanics of the minutia along the path to an actual use.
But can you prove it halts?
;O)
Then again, it's a poor workman who blames his tools...
Cars have limited functionality. Go left, go right, stop etc. It’s easy to make failsafes (for the most part) for a relative few options. The computer is a human interface. Very difficult.
I've used both over the years, but rely on Word now. If WP was that good, it would lead the industry by now, which it doesn't. Whatever your reasons for hating MS, that's fine. However, the market says you're in a minority. And please, don't give me that pedestrian "operating system monopoly" argument. I understand Microsoft has warts, but you can't get to their position in world markets without doing most things right.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.