[pablasso]

Oh, I can play this game too: Why don't we make software without bugs? if you do software in an intelligent way there's no need to create bugs.

Of course everyone strives for better processes —at the end of the day, that means more revenue— is just that those problems seem easier to solve from the outside.

[taspeotis]

As an extreme example: NASA has done a pretty good job of making software without bugs [1].

    Consider these stats : the last three versions of the program — each
    420,000 lines long — had just one error each. The last 11 versions
    of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of
    equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors.

[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff

[alexeiz]

I wouldn't be surprised if NASA had a different definition of "error" than a typical "bug" in commercial software. My video player plays every single mpeg/avi/mkv I through at it. Yet it has dozens if not hundreds of serious bugs. I just doubt those bugs fall under the NASA's definition of "error".

[hyperpape]

Keep going, why don't we all write software the way NASA does?

(Also, it's just an analogy. I think perfect hiring would be much harder than bug free software).

[na85]

Because companies are interested in profit; not top-quality software.

Anyone who tells you differently is deluded or lying.

[taspeotis]

That's why it's an extreme example.

I don't know if it's possible for anyone to answer this question but: does any organisation have a hiring process that's 5000:1 better than the average equivalent, like NASA's 5000:1 software defect rate?