I don't understand this attitude. Where did we go wrong as a discipline where making products that actually work is such an outlandish proposition? No other consumer product industry would talk like this.

It comes from the halting problem. People can be more careful writing code, but it is impossible to be certain about all the things code will or won't do. Even very simple programs can have flaws that get found and fixed years later. It happens all the time.

We need to be open and honest about the possibility that our code may act in ways we don't foresee.

If this was actually true, we wouldn't have safety critical software systems that have been running for decades without fatal bugs.

> If this was actually true, we wouldn't have safety critical software systems that have been running for decades without fatal bugs.

Not hitting a bug is not the same as not having a bug. I'd bet money that whatever system you're talking about has bugs. Plus, the system may be far simpler than you assume.

> I don't understand this attitude. Where did we go wrong as a discipline where making products that actually work is such an outlandish proposition? No other consumer product industry would talk like this.

Part of it is cost/benefit ratio for the extra effort, part of it is market demands, part of it is lack of technology, part of it is unavoidable stuff like the halting problem.

It's also worth remembering that Signal is developed by a non-profit with a total of 36 staff members (if Wikipedia is correct). That means they have fewer developers, and even fewer Android developers.

This is a messaging app we're talking about here. There's nothing outrageously difficult or complex that hasn't already been done 25 years ago. If 36 people and $100 million in funding is not enough to make a messaging app that doesn't suck, what _is_ required and why is it more than that?

> This is a messaging app we're talking about here. There's nothing outrageously difficult or complex that hasn't already been done 25 years ago.

If you think it's so easy, be your own change and do it, and then we can judge the results.

> If 36 people and $100 million in funding is not enough to make a messaging app that doesn't suck, what _is_ required and why is it more than that?

You're assuming there's a solution of a certain form to get you what you want, but maybe it's your assumption that's wrong.

I mean, there are formally verified systems that might be like what you're asking, but they're both 1) very expensive, 2) extremely feature poor.

I'm busy, but tell you what, I'll do it for only $75 million. Maybe I should launch a Kickstarter.