4 ms·
So adding memory was cheaper than fixing the leaks?
by jjdredd 9y ago
So adding memory was cheaper than fixing the leaks?
- matte_black 9y agoway cheaper
- cbhl 9y agoI imagine this depends on how many missiles are being made: adding memory: $xxx per missile paying a software engineer to fix a memory leak: $x,xxx,xxx
- nomel 9y ago> paying a software engineer to fix a memory leak: $x,xxx,xxx Paying the software engineer would be a fraction of the cost to fix the memory leak in software. Recertification of the software would blow it all away.
- deathanatos 9y agoSerious question: adding more / different memory wouldn't also trigger recertification of the software? It seems like those shouldn't be coupled, but I seem to remember (horror) stories about programs running on machines with segmented memory, where the segments straddled each other, and/or where the last segment wrapped around to the beginning of RAM. Expanding RAM in such a scenario would cause wrapped writes to no longer wrap, for example. Or any other illogical reason a program could use or abuse the size of RAM for. It just never ceases to amaze me how things that should be completely decoupled can end up not being. > blow it all away I appreciated the wording there. :)
- amelius 9y ago> Recertification of the software would blow it all away. This makes me wonder, will self-driving cars need recertification if even one line of code is touched?
- kbsletten 9y agoMan, I hope so. Do you know how many times I've seen "really simple" one-line changes hose everything? Bonus points if they're to fix something that was pressing but not urgent and now you've just made it 10x worse.
- matte_black 9y agoLet me put it this way, if there is a car that doesn’t get its driving software recertified even after one line of code is changed, you do not want that car.
- amelius 9y agoYeah, ok, but what about the cars that drive around me?