Dave Parnas Quotes

When I write software, I know that it will fail, either due to my own mistake, or due to some other cause.

I'm not a programmer myself, but I am a very, very picky end user of technology. I like my machines to work they way they're supposed to, all the time.

Writing software that's safe even in the presence of bugs makes the challenge even more interesting.

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs.

The process of software development doesn't feel any better than it did a generation ago.

Defect-free software does not exist.

In a previous life I wrote the software that controlled my physics experiments. That software had to deal with all kinds of possible failures in equipment. That is probably where I learned to rely on multiple safety nets inside and around my systems.

The average user doesn't give a damn what happens, as long as (1) it works and (2) it's fast.

This will surprise some of your readers, but my primary interest is not with computer security. I am primarily interested in writing software that works as intended.

If I say I've got two versions of Word - that old one from 1982 that's perfect, with zero defects; or the new one that's got all this cool new stuff, but there might be a few bugs in it - people always want the new one. But I wouldn't want them to operate a plane I was on with software that happened to be the latest greatest release!

I'm not saying we purposely introduced bugs or anything, but this is kind of a natural result of any complexities of software... that you can't fully test it.

For many years, even as users became more sophisticated, personal computers took too much effort to use without problem-solving, keeping alive the yearning for greater simplicity. Microsoft's dominant Windows platform, in particular, was a home for all manner of bugs and problems that required IT people to straighten out.

A very important part of game development is testing - something that a lot of developers don't do.

All real programs contain errors until proved otherwise which is impossible.

When someone builds a bridge, he uses engineers who have been certified as knowing what they are doing. Yet when someone builds you a software program, he has no similar certification, even though your safety may be just as dependent upon that software working as it is upon the bridge supporting your weight.

I found out that most programmers don't like to test their software as intensely as I do.

Running the test suite like this allows us to catch problems when they are just introduced.

Good companies do whatever it takes to make sure apps are great and don't hesitate to add features.

I think it's a combination of technical and social factors that leads to all the defects in deployed software.

The fundamental problem with program maintenance is that fixing a defect has a substantial chance of introducing another.

Our lives sometimes depend on computers performing as predicted.

It's important to be informed about issues like usability, reliability, security, privacy, and some of the inherent limitations of computers.

Well, user feedback was excellent. Even when the software didn't work at all, there were few people who were avid users, and there were people who were just sending excellent feedback and excellent ideas.

Most of the work performed by a development engineer results in failure.

All software sucks.