3 ms·
It really boggles my mind but you referring to this as mission-critical software when it's an in development product in its infancy. Surely you're trolling?
by redwood 10y ago
It really boggles my mind but you referring to this as mission-critical software when it's an in development product in its infancy.
Surely you're trolling?
- nickpsecurity 10y agoIt's intended to eventually be mission-critical software. So, you design it for verification from the beginning. You don't have to do all the QA at once. You just do a little plus leave room in how it's structured and coded to do more easily later on. This isn't trolling: it's standard practice in safety- and security-critical development. Also used by teams outside those fields that just want their stuff to work reliably & be easy to maintain. Another principle from high-assurance security is that it's usually impossible to retrofit high robustness into a product after the fact. Has to be baked into it with each decision you make. Interestingly, the author cites the fact that correctness is usually impossible to retrofit and should be in from beginning. So, they already know this. ;)