4 ms·
You are missing the big picture here. The key phrase is: "risk management". Anything that your are doing (or NOT doing) have inherent risks. You should manage t
by tener 10y ago
You are missing the big picture here. The key phrase is: "risk management". Anything that your are doing (or NOT doing) have inherent risks. You should manage those risks.
If risk realises you will be losing money (in various ways, including litigation) or other assets (such as reputation, talented people, market share etc.). You can lower your exposure to the risk generally by spending money on it. You can hire more devs, testers, enact better policies, increase auditing etc. You can even buy insurance.
What you are advocating for is myopic. You should decrease your risk exposure in a way that is most efficient. It may be with better software, but often this isn't the case.
What the public can and should do is to work on the other part of the equation: make the failure more costly. You should "make them pay" - literally. If you could go to out of business or to prison because the software you have delivered is faulty, you will really make sure it isn't. Simple as that.
EDIT: a few recent banking regulations are good examples. In general various regulators have demanded that the international banks setup demonstrably independent local companies with appointed heads that are criminally responsible for misdeeds done those local companies. Putting in prisons few developers isn't goint to fix anything - the company will simply hire another few. Threatening the people in power is the way to go.
- alistairSH 10y agoIf you could go to out of business or to prison because the software you have delivered is faulty And that's the problem. If a civil engineer designed a bridge that maimed hundreds, he would lose his license. There is no license to be lost for software developers. What will be the cost to the company that built this shoddy justice system software? Will anybody go to jail or be personally held accountable? I doubt it (I can't think of cases where a developer has been personally responsible).
- tener 10y agoIf you are going to put to jail a single developer, you may as well put to jail the entire company. That in turn wouldn't be practical or fair. It isn't the developer who has signed the contract to deliver the faulty piece of software that started this whole discussion.
- alistairSH 10y agoIt isn't the developer who has signed the contract Yes, and that's the problem. The engineer didn't sign the contract either, but he DID sign his name on the design. There should be some equivalent in software. And just as not all "engineers" are professional engineers (licensed), not all software developers should need to be licensed. But, for something like descried in the original article, there damn sure ought to be somebody to hold accountable.
- tener 10y ago> But, for something like descried in the original article, there damn sure ought to be somebody to hold accountable. Yes. Currently you can sue the company that delivered the stuff. Stop blaming the wrong people please.
- alistairSH 10y agoI could say the same about the civil engineer, or lawyers, or MDs. Are you really arguing that professional licensing isn't needed because we can always seek remedy through the court system?