5 ms·

If the programmer can’tbe bothered to put in enough verification effort to avoid being negligent, they should not be in charge of safety critical code. Plainly:

If the programmer can’tbe bothered to put in enough verification effort to avoid being negligent, they should not be in charge of safety critical code. Plainly: don’t pretend there aren’t ways to ensure correctness of systems.

baroffoos 8y ago
But that same developer can put the same effort in at another field and not be constantly at risk of a mistake doing massive damage to them. You would have to be paid an incredible amount to make it worth it.
- newen 8y ago
  Why is that a problem? The cost of business should obviously include safety concerns.
  - jdminhbg 8y ago
    It's "not a problem" until the next round of "why does Silicon Valley only work on trivialities?" articles pops up.
    - newen 8y ago
      Or there will be people who gain expertise in developing software good enough that software engineering will be considered an actual engineering discipline.
- lovich 8y ago
  How do other fields where the workers are liable for damages like this work? What do architects who sign off on buildings do for example? I don't believe they all ask for incredible amounts of compensation
  - solveit 8y ago
    I think software is a lot more brittle than physics. It takes a lot to go from a sturdy building to something that could collapse, whereas in software the difference could be a single line of code, or two transposed words. Also, the software world doesn't have the benefit of millennia of accumulated best practices. Finally, the senior engineers and architects who are licensed to sign off on things they will be held criminally liable for do get incredible amounts of compensation as compared to their more junior colleagues.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      Anybody can build a bridge that doesn't collapse, it takes an engineer to build bridges that barely don't collapse. This is hard work, don't downplay it.
      - solveit 8y ago
        I'm not sure how facetious you're being so I'll just play it straight. Modern buildings are not supposed to barely not collapse, they're supposed to be safe even under scenarios quite a bit more extreme than what they're expected (or even legally allowed) to handle.
        adrianN 8y ago
        They're supposed to be exactly as stable as required by law for their intended use, using the minimal amount of labor and materials so satisfy the requirements. Making them more stable using more money is easy, but getting the calculations just right requires years of training.
        solveit 8y ago
        I see what you mean now. My point is that even if there's a minor screwup, the architect probably won't be prosecuted for anything because the building won't fail catastrophically thanks to modern standards which have substantial margins of safety built into them. It really does require criminal levels of negligence or extreme circumstances that would almost certainly save the architect from prosecution to have a building collapse on you. On the other hand, a minor screwup in software is far more likely to cause catastrophic failure because we just don't know how to workably build large, robust systems out of code.
- vkou 8y ago
  There are non-tech professions, where the lives of other people are literally in your hands. And a lot of the people doing them get paid a lot less then software engineers.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

baroffoos 8y ago

But that same developer can put the same effort in at another field and not be constantly at risk of a mistake doing massive damage to them. You would have to be paid an incredible amount to make it worth it.

newen 8y ago
Why is that a problem? The cost of business should obviously include safety concerns.
- jdminhbg 8y ago
  It's "not a problem" until the next round of "why does Silicon Valley only work on trivialities?" articles pops up.
  - newen 8y ago
    Or there will be people who gain expertise in developing software good enough that software engineering will be considered an actual engineering discipline.
lovich 8y ago
How do other fields where the workers are liable for damages like this work? What do architects who sign off on buildings do for example? I don't believe they all ask for incredible amounts of compensation
- solveit 8y ago
  I think software is a lot more brittle than physics. It takes a lot to go from a sturdy building to something that could collapse, whereas in software the difference could be a single line of code, or two transposed words. Also, the software world doesn't have the benefit of millennia of accumulated best practices. Finally, the senior engineers and architects who are licensed to sign off on things they will be held criminally liable for do get incredible amounts of compensation as compared to their more junior colleagues.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Anybody can build a bridge that doesn't collapse, it takes an engineer to build bridges that barely don't collapse. This is hard work, don't downplay it.
    - solveit 8y ago
      I'm not sure how facetious you're being so I'll just play it straight. Modern buildings are not supposed to barely not collapse, they're supposed to be safe even under scenarios quite a bit more extreme than what they're expected (or even legally allowed) to handle.
      - adrianN 8y ago
        They're supposed to be exactly as stable as required by law for their intended use, using the minimal amount of labor and materials so satisfy the requirements. Making them more stable using more money is easy, but getting the calculations just right requires years of training.
        solveit 8y ago
        I see what you mean now. My point is that even if there's a minor screwup, the architect probably won't be prosecuted for anything because the building won't fail catastrophically thanks to modern standards which have substantial margins of safety built into them. It really does require criminal levels of negligence or extreme circumstances that would almost certainly save the architect from prosecution to have a building collapse on you. On the other hand, a minor screwup in software is far more likely to cause catastrophic failure because we just don't know how to workably build large, robust systems out of code.
vkou 8y ago
There are non-tech professions, where the lives of other people are literally in your hands. And a lot of the people doing them get paid a lot less then software engineers.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]