4 ms·

This is one of the down sides of "software is eating the world." A 1960s Ford C4 or Chevrolet TH350 is mechanical and applied physics, whereas a modern automot

This is one of the down sides of "software is eating the world." A 1960s Ford C4 or Chevrolet TH350 is mechanical and applied physics, whereas a modern automotive transmission is mechanical and applied physics combined with a blackbox of software controlled electronics. While it's awfully hard to obfuscate mechanisms it's nearly effortless to do so with software.

whatshisface 7y ago
I wonder why they don't document and publish their code in the same way they documented and published their mechanisms.
- fallous 7y ago
  Because mechanisms instantiated are by their very nature "published," and any repairs are documented because they require intervention by the mechanic... or could be documented by anyone with enough knowledge and training to examine the mechanism. Patents and other intellectual property methods are the only barrier to a competitor reproducing the mechanical product, but software allows additional barriers to reproduction as well as a means to prevent modification of the operation from the manufacturer's desired behaviors. I'd also note that the era in which those mechanisms were created and documented included an expectation that owners often did their own automotive maintenance and repair and were far more mechanically-minded (it was an age defined by mechanisms) than current owners of autos.
  - userbinator 7y ago
    Code also does not require the same type of service or is subject to wear, as mechanisms do.
    - fallous 7y ago
      While the hardware it runs on may require servicing, well-designed and well-implemented code should indeed be free of such a need. Alas my experience in maintaining many codebases over the years suggest that most code needs a lot more servicing, itself, than the hardware it ran on. ;)
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > as well as a means to prevent modification of the operation from the manufacturer's desired behaviors. In my view, this is a 100% illegitimate thing to do. Once I own a product, the manufacturer should have no say in what I do to the product.

whatshisface 7y ago

I wonder why they don't document and publish their code in the same way they documented and published their mechanisms.

fallous 7y ago
Because mechanisms instantiated are by their very nature "published," and any repairs are documented because they require intervention by the mechanic... or could be documented by anyone with enough knowledge and training to examine the mechanism. Patents and other intellectual property methods are the only barrier to a competitor reproducing the mechanical product, but software allows additional barriers to reproduction as well as a means to prevent modification of the operation from the manufacturer's desired behaviors. I'd also note that the era in which those mechanisms were created and documented included an expectation that owners often did their own automotive maintenance and repair and were far more mechanically-minded (it was an age defined by mechanisms) than current owners of autos.
- userbinator 7y ago
  Code also does not require the same type of service or is subject to wear, as mechanisms do.
  - fallous 7y ago
    While the hardware it runs on may require servicing, well-designed and well-implemented code should indeed be free of such a need. Alas my experience in maintaining many codebases over the years suggest that most code needs a lot more servicing, itself, than the hardware it ran on. ;)
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > as well as a means to prevent modification of the operation from the manufacturer's desired behaviors. In my view, this is a 100% illegitimate thing to do. Once I own a product, the manufacturer should have no say in what I do to the product.