> I disagree with this. How many times a year are motor vehicles recalled? >> >> They don't replace the car, they fix it. > Why can't defective software get a recall or a hefty fine if they refuse to > fix it? This is a major reason I walked away from the paid software world, > impossible to pay for quality.
Hrm...seems you disagree with your own point. It is nearly impossible to pay for "true" 100% quality. > Almost all physical devices come in models, which the next one usually > fixes the defects. Software is very easy to fix the same model. So I see > software as much simpler to improve on. That's why there are patches. But, just like physical products, patches can introduce new bugs because they too introduce new execution paths/"change behavior." I believe one good approach to improving quality (whether it be real or not) is to reduce functionality. Such a move should reduce code complexity and execution paths. But, afaik code quality and code size are not strongly associated. I'm not making excuses for software. Software is hard which imho is what makes it appealing. I do love the paper Jan mentioned because it highlights the importance of standards bodies. It also highlights the potential use of government organizations to regulate markets, which is what the original article mentions. I won't say which I prefer because you can probably determine that on your own. Good discussion.
