Thank you for your comment. I may have been a bit rude, but that was not my intention. I trust you will understand.

Anyway, there are points in your thinking that I also resonate with. I realize now that some of my arguments were too rough.

I am not going to withdraw the point that formal specifications cannot always be specified with perfect accuracy, but I do think there were some shallow aspects to what I said. I appreciate that a programmer like you took the time to write such a thoughtful reply to me. I have also been reading the books you recommended as PDFs. I have learned a lot about areas and methodologies I was not familiar with. Thank you for that.

For now, I am planning to learn more about formal verification as you mentioned. Up to now, I have only been applying very basic methodologies. I mainly used techniques like Result types, algebraic data type modeling, and guard clause based Design by Contract.

The reason I am doing this is that my work mostly involves repetitive tasks, and I think the methodologies you mentioned would fit me quite well. I hope you are not offended.

Thank you for taking the time to engage with my comments, and I also appreciate you taking the trouble to recommend books. I will study them and try to apply what I learn in my work. Have a good day. I feel a bit sorry for having spoken impolitely to you, a senior programmer, as a junior