You can't just divide the world into people who believe fallacies and people who don't. They are rooted in fundamental cognitive biases, everyone falls for the "just try harder"/"just be better"/"just don't put any bugs in the code"/"just have excellent test coverage" thing sometimes.
Certainly all the most experienced engineers I work with, who should definitely know better, still haven't fully internalised the fact that all code is broken.
They really should. I've been programming over 20 years and don't think I've seen a program without at least a few defects. A couple have come close, those are impressive, but bugs always happen.
Show me a program that has no bugs and I'll show you a program that does nothing at all!
Even most Hello Worlds don't check the pipe was written to correctly. And now we get into "well actually that's technically not a bug because it is not in the spec" and if we're finding the need to split that hair, we can hardly be talking about some mythically perfect software.
> Show me a program that has no bugs and I'll show you a program that does nothing at all!
"Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work."
You’re not wrong but Knuth’s programs have very few bugs and do a shitload.
“The reward for coding errors found in Knuth's TeX and Metafont programs (as distinguished from errors in Knuth's books) followed an audacious scheme inspired by the wheat and chessboard problem,[10] starting at $2.56, and doubling every year until it reached $327.68.”
Certainly all the most experienced engineers I work with, who should definitely know better, still haven't fully internalised the fact that all code is broken.