3 ms·

This doesn't really work as a blanket statement. Future proofing and trying to guarantee bug-free code is worth something -- for example if I'm building a space

This doesn't really work as a blanket statement. Future proofing and trying to guarantee bug-free code is worth something -- for example if I'm building a space shuttle to go to the moon, I want some degree of certainty that software bugs will not cause that mission to fail, and I might be willing to spend a lot of time and money to ensure that doesn't happen. I think a more accurate statement of this sentiment is that investing time and effort into preventing future bugs and problems stops being worth it after a certain point (and perhaps earlier than many software engineers would think).

boilerupnc 9y ago
Interesting read about the level of effort and process invested in the Space Shuttle's software (~1996): https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff. For a TLDR, this answer (https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9260/how-often-if-ever-was-software-updated-in-the-shuttle-orbiter#answer-9271 https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9260/how-often-if-...) is great. My favorite excerpt: The Shuttle software consists of ca. 420,000 lines. The total bug count hovers around 1. At one point around 1996, they built 11 versions of the code with a total of 17 bugs.