Wrong. What Russell&#x2F;Gödel&#x2F;Turing&#x2F;Rice&#x2F;etc. tell you you can&#x27;t do is write a <i>decision procedure</i> that checks arbitrary nontrivial properties of programs. In other words, if you first write a program and only then ask whether it is correct, you&#x27;ve already lost.<p>Obviously, the solution is to stop writing arbitrary programs. As Dijkstra said long ago, we need to find a class of intellectually manageable programs - programs that lend themselves to being analyzed and understood. Intuitively, this is exactly what programmers demand when they ask for “simplicity”. The problem is that most programmers&#x27; view of “simplicity” is distorted by their preference for operational reasoning, eschewing more effective and efficient methods for reasoning about programs at scale.