3 ms·
My first thought was how error prone it would be with humans weaving it but then that description from Raytheon's processs seemed to have addressed this. An au
by DoingIsLearning 7y ago
My first thought was how error prone it would be with humans weaving it but then that description from Raytheon's processs seemed to have addressed this.
An automated process is only better than humans because it is repeatable. However it can still repeatably do the wrong thing!
Do you have any insight into what was the design process for such a safety critical device and how provable was it's 'correctness'?
- kens 7y agoAre you asking about the process for the weaving, or the process for the software? For the weaving, it's straightforward to test that everything was woven correctly, by verifying the values in all the memory locations. As for writing the software, they had detailed specifications, review of changes, design reviews, and lots of testing. Some information is here: https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch2-6.html https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch2-6.html
- DoingIsLearning 7y agoI was suppose my question was more biased to the software side. Thank you for sharing the link it's a great read.