3 ms·
I would argue that these incidents indicate a need for aerospace levels of quality assurance. With the right tooling this does not need to be expensive. I hop
by w_t_payne 9y ago
I would argue that these incidents indicate a need for aerospace levels of quality assurance.
With the right tooling this does not need to be expensive.
I hope that incidents like this encourage people to develop open source tooling to support safer software and higher levels of quality.
We can see how lives might depend on it.
- Piskvorrr 9y agoAerospace QA is expensive by definition, because reliability nines generally are, whatever the industry: an additional nine costs 10x. You can go cheaper, but with a corresponding decrease in reliability.
- w_t_payne 9y agoA lot (but not all) of the costs are due to additional process steps that can be automated. I think we can dramatically increase safety and quality by selectively adopting some of the concepts from aerospace and aggressively automating them. Traceability; NLP for requirements etc..
- Piskvorrr 9y agoThat is probably true, and might help - but that only gets you so far, can't program your way out of everything. For high reliability, you'll need redundancy (and thus fallback and voting and whatnot), which will a) drive up HW costs, while also b) increasing complexity. I do agree there are some LHF opportunities to learn from aviation, but doing that is insufficient.
- w_t_payne 9y agoI agree with you on the topic of redundancy. I am probably not communicating it very well; but my main motivation is a reaction to just how much better our tools need to be.