> Also, since they're provably correct the "maintenance" metaphor is no longer applicable.
If you want your software to never change, then sure, a proof of correctness is enough. But I've yet to see a piece of software that is both relevant and never has to adapt to new requirements.
Agreed. When I said "maintenance" I was referring to the continuous post hoc work needed to uphold the original functionality as it encounters the full range of it's potential input.
If you want your software to never change, then sure, a proof of correctness is enough. But I've yet to see a piece of software that is both relevant and never has to adapt to new requirements.