C Community's Cavalier Attitude On Software Reliability

[Dr. T. Andrews]

)  Following are ... prime examples of why the C community is thought 
)  of by many as having an unprofessional and irresponsible attitude 
)  toward software reliability: [ examples of "bugs" from "man" pages ]
On the other hand, I see this practice as commendable honesty.
Programs have bugs.  You know that, I know that, Mr. Wolfe knows
that.

Some of the things cited aren't amenable to change: do you really
expect the currency conversion tables for units(1) to update
themselves every morning from the currency tables in the paper?

That people will
	(a) admit that there are bugs,
	(b) identify them
	(c) solicit assistance in tracking them down
seems to me to be an example of an attitude toward reliability which
should spread.  Compare this to the attitude of the shrink-wrap folks
who say "works great.  no warranty once we receive the money."  When
was the last time your compiler vendor told you, up front, of the
things which don't work?  (On the other hand, report it and it may
turn out that it's a "known bug".)  Compare to the latest release
of PC-Word-Mung.

That authors of routines in xxx(3) admit that their routines do
not work in some silly cases (eg: tan(2**31)) also seems commendable.
You are warned to ask sensible questions of the routine.  By supplying
this information, the authors enhance software reliability in their
client programs.
-- 
{gatech!uflorida}!ki4pv!cdis-1!tanner {bpa uunet}!cdin-1!cdis-1!tanner