[56chan4]

Chaff bugs like something from WW2 is a valid technique of obfuscation, provided it doesnt eat into the time and money of the key revenue making activity. Whilst equates, libraries and OOP can reduce the incidence of bugs, perhaps the whole method of coding is flawed from the off? If you can abstract the code enough, you can reduce the incidence of bugs by many factors, but there is only one IDE/language I know of which seriously reduces the incidence of bugs and thats called Clarion by Softvelocity. Its old school (dos) DB orientated but the templates reduce the incidence of bugs but in my experience coders cant get their heads around the abstract nature of the templates. The templates not only give you standardised coding (in any language if someone wants to invest in developing templates for other languages), this means its easy to write programs which can rehash some of the exported app & dct code. In turn every customer/end user can have an identical in function but unique in code and thus hashed EXE to run on their own systems making the exploitation of bugs even harder. I think templates put most programmers off, but its the crown jewels for taking most business systems to the next level.