June 21st 1999. Its midsummer night - the day after I last published an IMHO. Tonight I have a dream ...

that in the future software will genuinely improve the lives of the people who use it (either directly or indirectly). That software will need to be reliable, safe, usable, fast and understandable. The notion that buggy software or unfathomably badly designed interfaces can or could kill will be facets of a bygone age. People will learn in history classes about a neolithic age when software was dangerous.

Can this dream ever be a reality?

As you may know, I spent quite a lot of time in Malaysia over the last two years. Malaysia is an emerging country in South East Asia. Until the recent downturn it was enjoying huge economic growth. Many Malaysians now enjoy the ability to own and run a low cost car. The ownership of such vehicles in turn facilitates increased economic growth. In the same way that the coming of affordable motor vehicles revolutionised life in the developed world almost 100 years ago. So it is true now in the developing world.

The average Malaysian drivers a Proton Saga. A what? I suspect that the US readership of this column have never heard of Proton. I would be very surprised if Proton vehicles are sold in the USA. They almost certainly don't meet the stringent US safety regulations for family sedans. The Proton is not the safest of vehicles. In some countries the older "saga" model would not meet saftey legislation. I have been unfortunate enough to witness a family of French citizens perish in a horrific accident involving a Proton car. An accident which they may have survived in a more sturdy vehicle. So what is the point?

Does the average Malaysian stop to worry about the safety of his Proton before he gets into it every morning? Not likely. In a country where whole families will ride 4 up on a scooter without helmets, a Proton feels very safe indeed. If you suggested that he give up his Proton for a much safer and more expensive western alternative, what would the average Malaysian say?

The point here is that safety is sacrificed in exchange for the benefits and from a government perspective the economic advantage to be gained. The Malaysian economy simply cannot wait for expensive, safer western cars to become affordable, it must press ahead regardless.

Here in the west, we have recently become obsessed with the safety of RF emitting devices. Trade Union movements in Europe have forced through new emissions regulations which mean that electronic devices are manufactured and tested to much higher standards. This has increased the cost to the manufacturer and ultimately to the customer. Within the EU and the US, this was a cost considered worth paying. Developing nations have the option to gain economic advantage by choosing to use cheaper, less safe devices. Evidently, western governments felt that the effect of this would be negligible and were prepared to accept the consequences of new emissions regulations.

With a few exceptions, most notably the defence industry, the customers for software represent a developing nation economy. Even in sophisticated markets such as the US and the EU, the customer has repeatedly shown that they are willing to buy poor quality products which are unreliable and unsafe. This would perhaps be true also of cars or electronic equipment but governments have assumed a responsibility to their populace and have legislated to protect them. The public simply cannot buy a monitor which does not meet the required regulations, nor can they buy cars which do not meet minimum safety regulations in respect of many components.

There is a lobby in the software business which says that government interference is unnecessary and unwanted. I am sure that the same was true in the civil engineering industry and the avionics industry. However, legislation was forthcoming and the result was that bridges stopped falling down with regularity and planes stopped falling out of the sky with regularity. The evidence of history would suggest that government legislation improves engineering quality and the subsequent reliability of the output product.

There is currently no such legislation for software. Further it would seem that there is no political will to see such legislation and no sense of responsibility to protect the public from the danger of poor quality software.

Why should that be?

One reason may be that the US has a huge economic lead in software development and it is certainly not in the national interest to slow down the industry and risk giving up such a leadership. The current "feel good" factor in the US economy and ultimately the approval rating of the President has a lot to do with the success of High Technology industry and the software sector in particular. So there is unlikely to be any legislation from the US. Not in the short term.

So what about the world's other economic power block, the EU. Could not the EU legislate to bring in stricter laws on software quality, performance guarantees and testing procedures? Well perhaps! but what might be the effect?

The initial effects of such legislation may be to slow down the EU software industry and make it internationally uncompetitive. Another side effect may be that US software would not meet strict EU regulations and would be banned from sale. A blow to the US? Perhaps. A bigger blow to the EU economy which would surely slow when unable to take advantages of the latest software from Sun, IBM, Lotus, Microsoft, Oracle etc.. So very little chance that the EU will act unilaterally.

In truth governments are happy with the third world mentality of the software business.

So can my midsummer dream ever come true?

Well perhaps, in my wonderful dream, the US and the EU may just get together (or in sync) and act as they did with RF emissions and bring in simultaneous legislation which would force the software industry to produce better quality products. Products designed for the public good which at the same time don't put the public at risk or in danger. Products which genuinely do improve the quality of life for the user community.