Bjarne Stroustrup Quotes

I think it is inevitable that people program poorly. Training will not substantially help matters. We have to learn to live with it.

When it comes to software, I much prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.

Agitator and the Agitar Management Dashboard lower the barriers to accountability in software development and increase the value of developer testing.

In a previous life I wrote the software that controlled my physics experiments. That software had to deal with all kinds of possible failures in equipment. That is probably where I learned to rely on multiple safety nets inside and around my systems.

There is a strong movement towards increased accountability for software developers and software development organizations.

When someone builds a bridge, he uses engineers who have been certified as knowing what they are doing. Yet when someone builds you a software program, he has no similar certification, even though your safety may be just as dependent upon that software working as it is upon the bridge supporting your weight.

This will surprise some of your readers, but my primary interest is not with computer security. I am primarily interested in writing software that works as intended.

There are lots of Linux users who don't care how the kernel works, but only want to use it. That is a tribute to how good Linux is.

I think it's a combination of technical and social factors that leads to all the defects in deployed software.

I started working on OpenBSD, and many earlier projects, because I have always felt that vendor systems were not designed for quality.

When I write software, I know that it will fail, either due to my own mistake, or due to some other cause.

Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid with millions of bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, but just done by brute force and thousands of slaves.

Writing software that's safe even in the presence of bugs makes the challenge even more interesting.

All software sucks.

The reality of most software development is that the consequences of failure are simply nonexistent.

However, writing software without defects is not sufficient. In my experience, it is at least as difficult to write software that is safe - that is, software that behaves reasonably under adverse conditions.

In the practical world of computing, it is rather uncommon that a program, once it performs correctly and satisfactorily, remains unchanged forever.

Yet, I am convinced that there is a need for high quality software, and the time will come when it will be recognized that it is worth investing effort in its development and in using a careful, structured approach based on safe, structured languages.

I'm not saying we purposely introduced bugs or anything, but this is kind of a natural result of any complexities of software... that you can't fully test it.

Apple's advantage is that it designs and builds software together, so if the software isn't excellent, it does the superlative hardware a disservice.

For us, the real goal is to make it so that the software ecosystem is as healthy as possible.

I'm a common sense person who tries to analyze and I have to look at all sides of the issue because you don't want software that only does something but doesn't fix the other errors.

At first I hoped that such a technically unsound project would collapse but I soon realized it was doomed to success. Almost anything in software can be implemented, sold, and even used given enough determination. There is nothing a mere scientist can say that will stand against the flood of a hundred million dollars. But there is one quality that cannot be purchased in this way - and that is reliability. The price of reliability is the pursuit of the utmost simplicity. It is a price which the very rich find most hard to pay.

Software breaks before it bends, so it demands perfection in a universe that prefers statistics.

Accidental stacks considered harmful.