Software crisis: the next generation (2016)

> This is not just a claim, this is my personal experience after about 23 years of programming where 90% of those years were spent using statically typed systems.

If most of your experience was with statically typed systems, it's just logical you would have very little experience with bugs that are prevented by statically typed systems - because this prevention would be at work. Looks like an opposite of survivor's fallacy, really.

>A leading indicator of what’s to come is the state of computer security. We’re seeing an alarming rise in big security breaches, each more epic than the next, to the point where they’re hardly news any more. Target has 70 million customers’ credit card and identity information stolen. Oh no! Security clearance and personal data for 21.5 million federal employees is taken from the Office of Personnel Management. ...

I’m not a fan of this type of article, the article where we find a group of bad things and then go find something to blame for it. It’s easy to say all this stuff was caused because “we just don’t make stuff like we used to”, but I think it’s wrong-headed.

Or more probably it’s used in the wrong sense. It’s true that we don’t make things like we used to. We have made giant leaps past anything we’ve ever done before. We have hundreds of thousands of companies online and millions of devices online, a level of interconnectedness that the planet has never seen before. We also have more accessible software development tools and many more people writing software than ever before.

Increasing numbers of security breaches are a sign of our progress not a sign of our failures. It’s just a sign that there is a lot more stuff attached to the internet and that unfortunately includes people with the intention to commit crimes.

Should we tolerate security breaches? No. Should we celebrate them? Of course not.

But let’s see them for what they are and search for a solution instead of something to vilify.

It's a tremendous conceit of the software community to actually believe these are purely-software problems that can be solved through software. Sure, software goes a long way, but I argue that it's a fool's errand to hope they can or should be solved in software, exclusively. Like - hardware will always be a factor, at least that should be obvious. But also culture/ society/ laws/ etc. have important practical implications. The very fact that we have lots of people scrutinizing these aspects suggests that the state of software security&privacy is really not "crap" (far from perfect, but definitely not "crap").

To you believe that article to be true, one must have a fairly black&white view of the world. 99% (probably much more) of the humans can't really bypass those "crap" security safeguards.... it's good that we have high standards (especially in areas like this), but come on. When in the human history was security(in general) better? What are we comparing it with, to postulate it's "crap"?

Just small remarks: technically it's not East and West, it changes.

Well, according to the basic physics laws: also yes. Yes because it depends on the observer. No, because it depends on the observer. The Copernicus book was about a theoretical model of an observer outside the planetary system (he didn't even claim that it was true "it was just a theory" - that's why he had no problems with the funny Catholic guys who burnt people for less).

But back to the point: both claims a true: Sun travels in space around Earth... and at the same time Earth does the same around Sun. All depends on the observer.

Maybe with the software it's the same?