Guido van Rossum

Yeah.

And there are all sorts of weird quirks there that don't make a lot of sense if you were to design a system like self-replicating molecules from scratch, right?

You'd be surprised how much resilience modern code has.

I mean, if you look at the number of bugs per line of code,

even in very well-tested code that in practice works just fine, there are actually lots of things that don't work fine.

And there are error-correcting or self-correcting mechanisms at many levels.

Well, in the end, the user who sort of is told, well, you got to reboot your PC is part of that system.

And a slightly less drastic thing is reload the page, which we all...

know how to do without thinking about it.

When something weird happens, you try to reload a few times before you say, Oh, there's something really weird.

Well, yeah, that we should all have learned not to do that because that's probably just going to turn the light back off.

That depends on whether you've ever read about research that's been done in this area before.

And I don't know.

The last time I...

I saw some research like that that was probably in the 90s, and the research might have been done in the 80s.

But the conclusion was across a wide range of different software, different languages, different companies, different development styles.

The number of bugs is always, I think it's in the order of about one bug per thousand lines in sort of mature software that is considered as good as it gets.

Oh, I was wrong by an order of magnitude there.

And I imagine this is marketing literature for someone who claims to have a golden bullet or a silver bullet that makes all that investment in fixing bugs go away.

But that is usually not going to happen.