> but let me not even count the ways in which software has failed me.

Failed you? This sounds either very entitled or sensational. Has software caused you major grief in any way financial or the loss of limbs or loved ones? While this happens, very few people are affected by bugs in such a way, at least confirmed.

When someone pays for software, they are perfectly entitled to expect it to be fit for purpose. Failures don't have to cause major grief for me to be justifiably irritated and to expect redress. A conscientious developer should apologize for wasting people's time or selling them products that don't do what they are supposed to.

>Failed you? This sounds either very entitled or sensational. Has software caused you major grief in any way financial or the loss of limbs or loved ones? While this happens, very few people are affected by bugs in such a way, at least confirmed.

Many people have been significantly affected by software bugs. Therac-25[1] is one I constantly remind myself of; it killed 5 people. Here's a list for further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs

I'm not sure what your definition of "very few people" is but we'd all do well to aim for 0 adversely-affected people as a result from using software we write.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

Read my reply again, note especially the part "While this happens". Obviously I am acutely aware of what you are saying, no matter how many Wikipedia articles you link, so your comment is not only superfluous but also makes no sense, as I was asking OP if he was personally affected in such a way because he seemed bitter. Your reply does not answer this, and you should let him answer for himself.

> I'm not sure what your definition of "very few people"

I think my definition is about the same as every accepted definition of "very few", the number of people affected by such bugs falls within this definition, considering how many users software has.

> Many people have been significantly affected by software bugs. Therac-25[1] is one I constantly remind myself of; it killed 5 people.

5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book.

>5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book.

...

>I was asking OP if he was personally affected

So 5 people dead is insignificant, but a single person, adversely affected, is cause for concern?

There're billions of people using software, divide 5 by that.

> 5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book.

Well, IIRC, there's Watership Down, a literal book, but I assume you meant that figuratively.

not to split hairs here, but according to the Wikipedia article, Therac-25 only killed 3 people.

Plumbing and electrical doesn’t change all too often. Once you learn the ins and outs it doesn’t change much over your career. Not the case with software development.

And when they do change there are very straightforward guides to the changes, when and where you can/should/must use new materials, and so on.

I know people who’ve programmed microcontrollers in C all their lives and still written bugs. It’s not like switching tooling once in a while is the source of bugs.

Still you insure your house for those things though. I think you are comparing apples with oranges here.

The worst thing code I have written ever did was cause a small power outage. But that was a one-time thing, I haven't had the opportunity to write code that even could do that in years.

Mine has - my plumber didn't apologise, but he did instruct me over the phone how to properly apply PTFE tape.