Niklaus Wirth Quotes

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

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.

We shifted our philosophy from being a computer mapping group that would support planners to the idea of building actual software that would be well engineered. Because at that time, our software was not well-engineered at all; it was basically built with project funding and for project work, largely by ourselves.

First, I'd like to see the basic tools such as compilers, debuggers, profilers, database interfaces, GUI builders, CAD tools, and so forth fully support the ISO standard.

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.

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

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

Indeed, the woes of Software Engineering are not due to lack of tools, or proper management, but largely due to lack of sufficient technical competence.

Software eventually and necessarily gained the same respect as any other discipline.

I have this hope that there is a better way. Higher-level tools that actually let you see the structure of the software more clearly will be of tremendous value.

The process of software development doesn't feel any better than it did a generation ago.

Software Engineering might be science; but that's not what I do. I'm a hacker, not an engineer.

Defect-free software does not exist.

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

My reply is: the software has no known bugs, therefore it has not been updated.

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.

I have never written a line of commercial code in my life. Nor should I.

The most sought-after candidates in the world today by companies like mine are people who make computer software - there's a shortage of talent.

I know one business, and that's how to make software.

I think, fundamentally, open source does tend to be more stable software. It's the right way to do things.

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

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

All software sucks.

Like any well designed software product, Windows is designed, developed and tested as an integrated whole.

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.