Re: WSJ article on software liability

From: CTips (ctips_at_bestweb.net)
Date: 02/28/05 

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:47:08 -0500

Traveler wrote:

> In article <slrnd26afp.2uv3.willem@toad.stack.nl>, Willem
> <willem@stack.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>Traveler wrote:
>>) Show me where I use the assumption that software and hardware are
>>) equally complex. You are fighting with a strawman of your own making
>>) and claiming victory. You are not arguing against my position.
>>
>>Okay. Your point is the following (quoted):
>>
>>'' My point is that an algorithmic software system of a given complexity
>> is much more unstable than an equally complex hardware system. ''
>>
>>Note the words 'equally complex'.
>>
>>Your arguments to support this position are basically a comparison of
>>certain hardware and software systems.
>>
>>These comparisons can only apply to your point if they, also, are of equal
>>complexity. Otherwise such a comparison does not apply. Therefore you
>>are either using the assumption that they are of equal complexity, or you
>>are using an argument that does not apply. Take your pick.
>
>
> It is easy enough to compare complexity between software and hardware
> systems and arrive at the conclusion that hardware systems are much
> more reliable tan software regardless of the complexity. This is
> well-known in the industry.

Try again. It is *not* well known in the industry - I can't think of
anyone who works in hardware and would believe that for equal complexity
applications hardware is more reliable than software.

If you feel that this is not true, please provide some pointers.

  Even the most ardent champions of "no
> silver bullet for software reliability", acknowledge that hardware
> systems are orders of magnitude more stable than software systems of
> equal complexity.

Sure, some are, but that is because they've had orders of magnitude more
man-years thrown at them, not because of any intrinsic property of
hardware design vs. software design.

  You are out of your league.
>

He may (or may not) be, but I'm not. I've done everything from pushing
polygons through synthesizing VHDL to writing device drivers and OSes
and compilers. I've done thermal analysis of MCMs, and I've implemented
JITs. I've done formal verification of designs, and I've written boolean
equivalence packages.

And I can tell you he's right.

> Louis Savain
>
> The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WSJ article on software liability
    ... >) hardware is simpler than that of software. ... >) hardware chips interacting in highly complex ways and yet they have ... of behavioral complexity, almost all hardware systems remain logically ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: WSJ article on software liability
    ... >> It is easy enough to compare complexity between software and hardware ... >> more reliable tan software regardless of the complexity. ... >hardware design vs. software design. ... My CPUs have not failed on me ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: WSJ article on software liability
    ... >)>size and complexity of a software emulator of a chip. ... Does that make hardware any less complex? ... A software emulation of hardware is a lot more stable ... Hardware failure is so much more expensive than software failure. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: OT: CPUs
    ... strategy but rather yields oscillating trends: (complexity in hardware ... There certainly are numerous examples of coevolution in predator-prey ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: WSJ article on software liability
    ... Hardware flaws are almost always caught during ... the *design*, and thats why it takes 1000 man-years to design, ... The same ISA can be implemented in a HLL and then ... Get over this idea that hardware design is comparable in complexity to ...
    (comp.programming)
Loading