Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- From: Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 6, 8:28 am, "Wilco Dijkstra"
<Wilco.removethisDijks...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> wrote in messagenews:y_adnVlHbcfkOeTXnZ2dnUVZ8hqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Not at all: We should instead use some of all those spare cycles/transistors to get rid of 99+% of the current buffer
overflow-style bugs/security risks.
Why waste hardware effort on something that is a essentially a management
issue? Companies are often unwilling to pay the real cost of correct and safe
software.
It's really more of an economic issue and should probably be a public
policy issue. There are lots of incentives to push risk off on the
buyer, and that's what companies do. Ultimately, much of the risk
gets pushed off on the public, along with the unspoken argument that
that's just the way it has to be.
We have plumbing codes, building codes, fire safety codes, codes for
cars, airplanes and buses, and codes for nearly anything that affects
public health and safety... except for anything having to do with
computers.
Incentives have to be built in. If they're not, no one (seller or
buyer) will spend the money. People would rather to buy cheap homes
that might be less safe than to pay to have safer ones, but they are
not given the option. Someone from IBM or DEC might correctly argue
that the microcomputer revolution was really about selling risky
products that they historically would not have, but there is no way to
put the genie back into the bottle. The mentality has put downward
pressure on prices in every market segment, including enterprise
software and hardware--with the possible exception of mainframes,
where the downward pressure is on volume.
One fix or another just isn't going to do it, and neither will Bill
Gates wailing about the competency of US grads. The problems are
systemic and pervasive and will yield only to fixes that are systemic
and pervasive.
I don't think that what Andy has proposed is necessarily a waste of
hardware, transistors, performance, or money, but it may lead to even
more sloppy programming. I don't worry much about syntax because it
costs little to get the compiler to find the errors. I'm not so sure
things would be better if programmers were counting on the hardware to
catch programming and conceptual errors.
Robert.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- From: Andy \"Krazy\" Glew
- Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- From: Andrew Reilly
- Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- From: nmm1
- Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- References:
- HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- From: Andy \"Krazy\" Glew
- Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- From: Terje Mathisen
- Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- From: Andy \"Krazy\" Glew
- Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- From: Terje Mathisen
- Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- From: Wilco Dijkstra
- HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- Prev by Date: ★★★Wholesale ADIDAS Sunglass ARMANI Sunglass CHANEL Sunglass (paypal payment www.dotradenow.com)
- Next by Date: Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- Previous by thread: Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- Next by thread: Re: HardBound and SoftBound (was "The State of Software")
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading