
Re: Mathematica and Lisp
Posted:
Feb 6, 2013 1:51 AM


In article <keqehj$erk$1@smc.vnet.net>, Bill Rowe <readnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/3/13 at 8:22 PM, lvsaba@hotmail.com (Matthias Bode) wrote: > > >The fact that WRI does not even "recommend the use of the Product" > >in instances where it could "threaten" ... "injury, or significant > >loss" does indeed constitute a most serious limitation to "the > >Product's" usefulness. > > Why do you reach the conclusion of "serious limitation"? All > that is really happening here is Wolfram is essentially > transferring legal responsibility for problems to the user. Not > any different than is typical of software developers. > > I don't think you can find any software with comparable > complexity/power to Mathematica that is bug free despite best > effort/intention of the software developer/programmer. Given > that, why would any software developer want to be held legally > responsible for damage etc caused by a bug he failed to find. > > Expecting Wolfram to willingly accept legal responsibility for > damages due to bugs in Mathematica is simply unrealistic. And it > is equally unrealistic to expect a developer of any similar > software to take willingly legal responsibility for damage > caused by bugs.
Exactly. For a view of what it takes to make software almost bugfree, look at the DO178 certification process, which is used for software that controls airplanes  it the software fails, you lose the plane.
As one would expect, DO178 is *very* heavy, causing at least a factor of ten cost increase. Or one hundred. If anything as complex as Mathematica could be certified at all  the scaling is far from linear.
Joe Gwinn

