[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

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>