4 ms·
Just a head's up. If there are human lives involved and at risk based on software development, it is incredibly, incredibly important that the software go throu
by sukuriant 16y ago
Just a head's up. If there are human lives involved and at risk based on software development, it is incredibly, incredibly important that the software go through the highest possible level of testing, including every possible codepath, every input partition, everything. If it crashes midflight due to a bug, there's about nothing you can do about it. And people will die.
Remember that when you're considering developing mission critical software. It is the most dangerous sort of software to write, and needs aggressively comprehensive testing.
- count 16y agoI mean this in the most positive fashion possbile, so please don't take it as just snarky assholism: It's that kind of thinking that would have prevented most of human achievement in the last few hundred years. If the people signing up to ride this open source rocket into space are aware of the risks, then let them take them. That doesn't mean don't put any care and testing into things, but don't turn into NASA when trying to innovate.
- potatolicious 16y agoThere's a difference between a risk-taking pioneering spirit, and needless stupidity. There's also a difference between accepting the inherent dangers of primitive spaceflight, and being cavalier with people's lives.
- sukuriant 16y agoI wouldn't consider the knowledge of proper mission-critical testing to be of any sort mission-critical scenario. You can choose to potentially put your people at risk, but I think those decisions should be left to the actual people who will be going up, and not to a person that wants to arbitrarily contribute to it like an open source project. Small patches can have huge consequences.