Eoin Colfer Quotes

Defect-free software does not exist.

Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.

There is a strong movement towards increased accountability for software developers and software development organizations.

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.

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

When you develop software, the people who write the software, the developers are the key group but the testers also play an absolutely critical role. They're the ones who ah, write thousands and thousands of examples and make sure that it's going to work on all the different computers and printers and the different amounts of memory or networks that the software'11 be used in. That's a very hard job.

Certain teams are more careful in what they write. They generate less bugs. You can know that but it still doesn't mean there might be there might not be one bug that would be bad to ship the product with.

And 1.1.81 is officially BugFree(tm), so if you receive any bug-reports on it, you know they are just evil lies.

As a rule, software systems do not work well until they have been used, and have failed repeatedly, in real applications.

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

All software sucks.

The reality of most software development is that the consequences of failure are simply nonexistent.

However, writing software without defects is not sufficient. In my experience, it is at least as difficult to write software that is safe - that is, software that behaves reasonably under adverse conditions.

If I see a spider in the flat, I try to get a cup and a piece of paper and throw it out of the window. I can't kill them because they're good for catching flies.

Developer testing is an important step towards accountability. It gives developers a way to demonstrate the quality of the software they produce.

Yet, I am convinced that there is a need for high quality software, and the time will come when it will be recognized that it is worth investing effort in its development and in using a careful, structured approach based on safe, structured languages.

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.

Testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence!

Men should stop fighting among themselves and start fighting insects.

Controlling mosquitos is tough. It's not quick; it's not easy. It requires work day in and day out to track where mosquitos are and to apply safely the appropriate mosquito control methods.

Apple's advantage is that it designs and builds software together, so if the software isn't excellent, it does the superlative hardware a disservice.

It's important not only to have the right timing of when the hardware is going to be released but also when we are going to be able to introduce quality software.

For us, the real goal is to make it so that the software ecosystem is as healthy as possible.