
Ask HN: Any software projects considered Done? - iptq
Assuming the semantics of programming languages are well-defined, I&#x27;m wondering if there&#x27;s any software projects that we can confidently say are entirely bug-free and not requiring any new feature additions to be considered complete.<p>If not, how about only considering the projects&#x27; core source code, not counting compiler&#x2F;build-chain bugs and dependency bugs?<p>If not, what would be the closest?
======
hackermailman
Daniel Bernstein's qmail has a standing offer from 1997 to find a bug
[https://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html](https://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html)
and the last version released was in 1998, I guess it's done. He wrote a paper
about why it succeeded
[https://cr.yp.to/qmail/qmailsec-20071101.pdf](https://cr.yp.to/qmail/qmailsec-20071101.pdf)

------
gus_massa
TeX (not LaTex) is quite close
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX#TeX82](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX#TeX82)

------
RNeff
The Hewlett Packard calculators had their binary code inserted into the ROMs
as part of the fabrication of the chip. The code was written in assembly
language, then heavily tested on hardware simulators. The original HP-35 had a
bug in the logarithm code. The bug had to be found and fixed, retested, new
ROM chips fabricated and packages. Then owners that wanted it fixed had to
mail their calculator back to HP. The unit was opened up, a ROM chip removed,
the new ROM soldered in, unit closed up, tested, mailed back. All for free.
There was a very strong demand that this never happen again. I am unaware of
any other HP calculator recalls. Each calculator code was considered complete.

The early video games, both console and arcade, were delivered in ROM chips.
Also early embedded systems like DVD/CD disk players, televisions, modules in
cars, routers, etc.

------
jjjbokma
I consider the static site generator [0] I wrote done. I don't plan to add new
features (can't think of any). I have no idea if there are bugs left in it; I
have been using it for 476 days to generate a tumblelog [1].

[0] [https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog](https://github.com/john-
bokma/tumblelog)

[1] [https://plurrrr.com/](https://plurrrr.com/)

------
maerF0x0
I doubt they'd claim to be perfectly "bug free" but this came to mind reading
your post: [https://github.com/boltdb/bolt](https://github.com/boltdb/bolt)

------
speedgoose
I think the GNU coreutils are mostly done.

