BOFH wrote:The long answer is that computers live in a world that engineers can't fully control. We don't yet control atoms on a quantum level. That is the single reason why modern cryptography survives.

Cryptography... the writing/solving of codes. I'm sorry, what was your point here?

We're talking about compilers that convert human readable syntax into bytecode. That bytecode is then executed in an operating system. That operating system is the result of calculations made by hardware components. Electric signals, off and on. ...Even if your software kicks ass, the compiler that converted it into bytecode sucks. The hardware that calculated its return sucks. Unfortunately for us computer scientists, we don't have a rock on the ground to pick up when our hammer breaks. We are depending too much on things we can't control.

You're confusing machine code and bytecode here - one is very high level, one is very, very low level, and the two are not interchangeable. Bytecode is about 'just in time' code modules that can be compiled at runtime, machinecode is the base language of the computer that deals with 'electrical signals, off and on.' As an actual computer scientist with years managing software development teams, I'm confused by some of your comments.

StroppyChops wrote:Cryptography... the writing/solving of codes. I'm sorry, what was your point here?

The fact that nature is more developed than our technology.

StroppyChops wrote:You're confusing machine code and bytecode here - one is very high level, one is very, very low level, and the two are not interchangeable. Bytecode is about 'just in time' code modules that can be compiled at runtime, machinecode is the base language of the computer that deals with 'electrical signals, off and on.' As an actual computer scientist with years managing software development teams, I'm confused by some of your comments.

I'm simplifying things for the audience. The points remain.

Not to mess with you, but there are other mistakes in that post if you would like to talk about them too. If we're going to be academically pedantic, cryptography doesn't involve "solving codes". That would be cryptanalysis.

BOFH wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:Cryptography... the writing/solving of codes. I'm sorry, what was your point here?

The fact that nature is more developed than our technology.

StroppyChops wrote:You're confusing machine code and bytecode here - one is very high level, one is very, very low level, and the two are not interchangeable. Bytecode is about 'just in time' code modules that can be compiled at runtime, machinecode is the base language of the computer that deals with 'electrical signals, off and on.' As an actual computer scientist with years managing software development teams, I'm confused by some of your comments.

I'm simplifying things for the audience. The points remain.

Yeah... nah.

StroppyChops wrote:Yeah... nah.

This is how you debate? No wonder people dislike computer nerds.

You're welcome to stop writing if you can't talk like an adult.

You replied before my edit. Let me repeat myself.

Not to mess with you, but there are other mistakes in that post if you would like to talk about them too. And if we're going to be academically pedantic, cryptography doesn't involve "solving codes". That would be cryptanalysis.

BOFH wrote:You replied before my edit. Let me repeat myself.

My apologies, how rude of me.

There are times when you're going to leave a metaphorical steaming pile on the carpet (I certainly do from time to time) and when somebody notices, it might be wise just to cough up and admit that it's your steaming pile rather than going on the attack and compounding your stupid.

Not to mess with you, but there are other mistakes in that post if you would like to talk about them too.

Frankly every part of your post was dubious, especially as you claim to be a computer scientist, but I didn't want to drag you that far down as you can occasionally post some interesting observations.

And if we're going to be academically pedantic, cryptography doesn't involve "solving codes". That would be cryptanalysis.

See, there again, yeah... nah. Cryptanalysis is a subset of cryptography - cryptography involves both coding and decoding. You're welcome to check this with an actual dictionary if you like, or speak to some of my students who went and became cryptographers with the AFP.

StroppyChops wrote:My apologies, how rude of me.

That's not how it was intended. I thought it would be a shame to have written something which would go unnoticed without repetition.

StroppyChops wrote:Frankly every part of your post was dubious, especially as you claim to be a computer scientist, but I didn't want to drag you that far down as you can occasionally post some interesting observations.

So with that aside, you are disputing my claim that perfect software can not exist. Please share why it can. Feel free to include examples. Or, if the question is unjust at the root, address it. The stage is yours.

And for clarification purposes, by "perfect software" I mean software which is free of security related malfunctions.

BOFH wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:My apologies, how rude of me.

That's not how it was intended. I thought it would be a shame to have written something which would go unnoticed without repetition.

Really? You'll understand that with how you got personal real quick, it doesn't seem that way?

StroppyChops wrote:Frankly every part of your post was dubious, especially as you claim to be a computer scientist, but I didn't want to drag you that far down as you can occasionally post some interesting observations.

So with that aside, you are disputing my claim that perfect software can not exist. Please share why it can. Feel free to include examples. Or, if the question is unjust at the root, address it. The stage is yours.

Actually rather than you attempting to divert attention like that and given that I said nothing about whether perfect software can exist, how about you go back and point out all the errors that you acknowledge exist in your post - I'm happy for you to keep the stage, as I'm far less competitive than you.

StroppyChops wrote:Really? You'll understand that with how you got personal real quick, it doesn't seem that way?

Where exactly have I said anything about your person? Please quote the relevant portion, I am curious.

It appears to be systematic for you to criticize something without making it clear what exactly we're talking about. That makes it very hard to talk about it.

I also find it interesting that you worry about bringing your person into the discussion. Something which I, as far as I'm concerned, never did. Meanwhile, in your first reply, one of the things made very clear was the fact that you have managed software development teams and therefore hold valid authority. Either way, I'm very happy to leave your person out of this. I'm here to talk about computers.

StroppyChops wrote:Actually rather than you attempting to divert attention like that and given that I said nothing about whether perfect software can exist, how about you go back and point out all the errors that you acknowledge exist in your post - I'm happy for you to keep the stage, as I'm far less competitive than you.

"Divert attention"? You said that I am wrong and I am asking you to explain why. I was talking about the impossibility of perfect software in the post that you disputed. The natural conclusion to make from that is that you are disputing the topic that I was talking about and the points raised in the post.

BOFH wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:Really? You'll understand that with how you got personal real quick, it doesn't seem that way?

Where exactly have I said anything about your person? Please quote the relevant portion, I am curious.

It appears to be systematic for you to criticize something without making it clear what exactly we're talking about. That makes it very hard to talk about it.

I also find it interesting that you worry about bringing your person into the discussion. Something which I, as far as I'm concerned, never did. Meanwhile, in your first reply, one of the things made very clear was the fact that you have managed software development teams and therefore hold valid authority. Either way, I'm very happy to leave your person out of this. I'm here to talk about computers.

StroppyChops wrote:Actually rather than you attempting to divert attention like that and given that I said nothing about whether perfect software can exist, how about you go back and point out all the errors that you acknowledge exist in your post - I'm happy for you to keep the stage, as I'm far less competitive than you.

"Divert attention"? You said that I am wrong and I am asking you to explain why. I was talking about the impossibility of perfect software in the post that you disputed. The natural conclusion to make from that is that you are disputing the topic that I was talking about and the points raised in the post.

I quite like your avatar.

StroppyChops wrote:I quite like your avatar.

I like yours too. But you need a top hat.