Programming
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
Windows event viewer... You open it, go to the toilet, to the shower, take a coffee, ... and only 2 more minutes later, it shows you the entries...
It's so perfect, they never had to improve it in decades.
/s
Some time ago I used haproxy, a software load balancer. I remember that I found an issue which was that it could start with an empty configuration or something similar. When I reached the owner repo it was stated that there were found nu bugs for years of heavy use.
Anything I've ever written....
..JK I suck ass
I would say git, tex, sqlite, Clojure, Steel banks common lisp are some of the candidates.
Perfect doesn't meen "not any bugs fixes or features needed" to me. I can't really define what it means to me...
I wanted to say VLC because to me, it's the gold standard of fully working open-source software that just destroys the commercial competitors.
But it's not perfect only because society changes. New video formats forces VLC and open-source devs to adapt. Bigger video and new tech specs require VLC to update. If it wasn't for all those external needs, VLC would be perfect.
Personally I prefer MPV but yeah both just wrap around FFMPEG
TeX?
Development is considered to be complete, and the version numbering is just adding a digit of pi. Last change was 5 years ago.
For software to be perfect, can not be improved no matter what, you'd have to define a very specific and narrow scope and evaluate against that.
Environments change, text and data encoding and content changes, forms and protocol of input and output changes, opportunities and wishes to integrate or extend change.
pwd seems simple enough. cd I would already say no, with opportunities to remember folders, support globbing, fuzzy matching, history, virtual filesystems. Many of those depend on the environment you're in. Typically, shells handle globbing. There's alternative cd tools that do fuzzy matching and history, and virtual filesystems are usually abstracted away. But things change. And I would certainly like an interactive and fuzzy cd.
Now, if you define it's scope, you can say: "All that other stuff is out of scope. It's perfect within it's defined target scope." But I don't know if that's what you're looking for? It certainly doesn't mean it can't be improved no matter what.
emacs can only be improved no matter what but it should count
As a vim user, I agree that it can only be improved.
A program that just prints "Hello World" to the screen and quits.
…that supports Unicode? Which encodings? Or only ASCII? Unicode continues to change.
I wouldn't be very confident that it won't change or offer reasonable opportunities for improvement.
Htop
Btop?
mcmaster.com is pretty close...
Idk if it's perfect but I really like the "literate programming" version of `
This is not the original, but here is one version of it : https://github.com/zyedidia/Literate/blob/master/examples/wc.lit
Your sentence abruptly ends in a backtick - did you mean to include something more? Maybe “wc”?
Winamp! It probably had some bugs or security issues but functional it was perfect imo.
There was a moment in time where maybe it was qmail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qmail
Ten years after the launch of qmail 1.0, and at a time when more than a million of the Internet’s SMTP servers ran either qmail or netqmail, only four known bugs had been found in the qmail 1.0 releases, and no security issues.
More on how it was accomplished:
https://blog.acolyer.org/2018/01/17/some-thoughts-on-security-after-ten-years-of-qmail-1-0/
Djbdns was excellent too, and ezmlm,.in fact all DJB's software was quality for its single purpose. The world moved on though, and you had to have your basic Internet servers just...do more
It's on Github and has several PRs.
It was fault tolerant but I wouldn't say it was perfect. There were plenty of "known issues", and the fix in production was basically, "don't do that".
You may be interested by this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_verification.
Prominent examples of verified software systems include the CompCert verified C compiler and the seL4 high-assurance operating system kernel.
Automotive engine control computers.
They just work, for decades and millions of miles.
TeX. Best documented source, and last bug found was 12 years ago.
The 2021 release of Tex included several bug-fixes, so not quite 12 years:
https://tug.org/texmfbug/tuneup21bugs.html
See also the following list of potential bugs, that may be included in the planned 2029 release of Tex:
https://tug.org/texmfbug/newbug.html
That said, Tex is still an impressive piece of software
Thanks for the update, I somehow missed that.
To be honest, they didn’t make it easy to find
7zip?
7zip has had few CVEs and vulnerabilities
No; since every user defines the perfect program differently. Which should be the default behaviour(s)?
Is there a perfect building?
Probably not, since they exist in an environment — which is constantly changing — and are used by people — whose needs are constantly changing.
The same is true of software. Yes, programs consist of math which has objective qualities. But in order to execute in the physical world, they have to make certain assumptions which can always be invalidated.
Consider fast inverse sqrt: maybe perfect, for the time, for specific uses, on specific hardware? Probably not perfect for today.
wget.
I don't think such thing as perfect software exist, only abandoned software. If the environment changes, then the software needs changes too.