Re: Mathematica and Lisp
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg129703] Re: Mathematica and Lisp
- From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akozlowski at gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 01:50:22 -0500 (EST)
- Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
- Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com
- Delivered-to: mathgroup-newout@smc.vnet.net
- Delivered-to: mathgroup-newsend@smc.vnet.net
- References: <20130205080550.53C66683D@smc.vnet.net>
On 5 Feb 2013, at 09:05, Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 2/3/13 at 8:22 PM, lvsaba at hotmail.com (Matthias Bode) wrote: > >> The fact that WRI does not even "recommend the use of the Product" >> in instances where it could "threaten" ... "injury, or significant >> loss" does indeed constitute a most serious limitation to "the >> Product's" usefulness. > > Why do you reach the conclusion of "serious limitation"? All > that is really happening here is Wolfram is essentially > transferring legal responsibility for problems to the user. Not > any different than is typical of software developers. > > I don't think you can find any software with comparable > complexity/power to Mathematica that is bug free despite best > effort/intention of the software developer/programmer. Given > that, why would any software developer want to be held legally > responsible for damage etc caused by a bug he failed to find. > > Expecting Wolfram to willingly accept legal responsibility for > damages due to bugs in Mathematica is simply unrealistic. And it > is equally unrealistic to expect a developer of any similar > software to take willingly legal responsibility for damage > caused by bugs. > > I think you missed the rather obvious sarcasm of Matthias's reply. AK
- References:
- Re: Mathematica and Lisp
- From: Bill Rowe <readnews@sbcglobal.net>
- Re: Mathematica and Lisp