I've seen the claim before that it was better in the olden days and that "no real engineer" would create software bugs, especially in connection with space flight. Meanwhile, here is a list of space flight software bugs that has cost over a billion dollars and put human lives in jeopardy:
> I've seen the claim before that it was better in the olden days and that "no real engineer" would create software bugs
But who would claim that seriously? That would be obvious hyperbole. The claim is rather that certain teams of engineers have created software/hardware combinations that, for all we know and for all practical purposes, did not have a bug and have not failed due to software error.
The development of high integrity systems is costly, though, so the discussion is a bit moot. Sure it would be possible to develop an Android app that - within the limitations of those devices and the buggy operating systems - would not fail due to a bug in its own program. It's just really expensive, particularly if the software is also formally verified. Generally speaking, it doesn't even make sense to consider "high integrity software" without the accompanying hardware. You can only satisfy real-time constraints for specific hardware anyway, and the certification and evaluation should be for software+hardware.
I honestly think the post I commented on more or less made this claim by calling the original statement "bullshit", writing off billion-dollar crashes and real risk of death as "programming problems" and calling it "actual engineering".
All humans are capable of unkowingly making mistakes which can have dire consequences. We've yet to see an approach to software development that will, without a shadow of a doubt, erradicate the possibility of bugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs#Space