Go read up on the development process NASA uses. It’s obviously possible to do development in a way where you focus on quality. It’s simply not profitable to do that. Tools like formal verification methods are in no way required to guarantee high quality of software. Even having good testing practices can get you very far. Meanwhile, ensuring the spec solves the problem in the first place is again a matter of moving more slowly and deliberately.
No, my retort is that we have real world examples like NASA, showing that you can design software using a different set of priorities. Nowhere did I say we have to be very careful. What I said is that you have to have a different kind of process. Try to engage with what’s actually being said to you instead of making a lazy straw man.
Go read up on the development process NASA uses. It’s obviously possible to do development in a way where you focus on quality. It’s simply not profitable to do that. Tools like formal verification methods are in no way required to guarantee high quality of software. Even having good testing practices can get you very far. Meanwhile, ensuring the spec solves the problem in the first place is again a matter of moving more slowly and deliberately.
I love it how basically your only retort is “but we think really hard about it and are very careful”. Which is exactly what I just said.
No, my retort is that we have real world examples like NASA, showing that you can design software using a different set of priorities. Nowhere did I say we have to be very careful. What I said is that you have to have a different kind of process. Try to engage with what’s actually being said to you instead of making a lazy straw man.