4 ms·

Yeah but the cost of that chain will also rise. If I'm (or my company is) personally on the hook for bugs, then I'm going to adopt a NASA-like software quality

Yeah but the cost of that chain will also rise. If I'm (or my company is) personally on the hook for bugs, then I'm going to adopt a NASA-like software quality regimen, pushing up the cost of the product. Every single part of the software stack below me, from hardware, OS, compiler toolchain, disavows responsibility so if I have to absorb all the risk, the product is going to be mind bogglingly expensive.

ryanong 6y ago
that doesn't sound bad to me if we are dealing with people's life or people's freedoms
Draiken 6y ago
I have to say that sounds exactly how this kind of software should be built. We're not talking about the newest social media hype. This software actually matters. Specially since today most of these bureaucratic processes can't be done without these softwares.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >I have to say that sounds exactly how this kind of software should be built. You see this in every topic. Every "muh pride in muh trade" person says something like this about the relevant trade but the fact of the matter is that the world runs on off-brand duct tape, harbor freight tools, walmart jeans, economy tires, and all sorts of other "value" solutions and the race to the bottom is what has given us much of the modern world that we take for granted. A balance needs to be struck. And it generally needs to be struck further toward the "quickly and cheaply build it like crap but make it easy to override or reset" portion of the available solution space than anyone pontificating about quality on the internet will readily admit.
  - handoflixue 6y ago
    We don't say "perfection is impossible" when it comes to bridges collapsing. We understand that yes, on rare occasion a bridge WILL collapse, but we go and find the people responsible, and we still hold them accountable. This is a level of accountability that basically every other field of engineering is held to, and they've all risen to the challenge and left the "off-brand duct tape" behind. Even within programming, planes don't fall out of the sky daily, so I feel safe assume the aerospace programmers are comfortable working with a high degree of responsibility. High speed traders are dealing with million-dollar stakes and a single mistake can make the news. I'd expect they've got a very accountable culture where people get fired when that happens. There are costs, yes, but there's also costs to keep 733 people illegally imprisoned - we're talking two man-years of peoples lives lost every DAY this goes on.
    - Aerroon 6y ago
      Why not hold the people accountable that deployed the tool? Ultimately the tool helps a human do the job. It doesn't do anything on its own. If a contractor shows up to do repairs in your house, but their hammer is faulty and the head flies through your window you don't talk to the hammer manufacturer. You talk to the contractor. It's the contractor's job to deal with wherever they got the hammer from. If software developers are held responsible for the software then expect costs to multiply. Nobody would directly sell you software either - they'd sell you a hardware and software bundle that you must use exactly as the developers say. If you input a value that's out of bounds then that's on you. The software also won't get updates and it will run on 20 year old hardware. That's not too dissimilar to what we have in aerospace, right? And developers aren't even held responsible there! It's the companies, so expect it to be worse than even that.
      - underwater 6y ago
        Would you blame the people who paid for the bridge for the collapse? Should they have understood the details and flagged where corners were cut. When it comes to critical system I think it's fair to say that the engineers who build it are the only ones who can fully understand the risk. This is the point behind accreditation. It forces the supplier to maintain a minimum bar for services to protect the reputation of the industry.
        vinger 6y ago
        In real life the engineers don't police themselves. Before a bridge, house or even patio deck with a foundation is used a safety inspector needs to give approval.
        underwater 6y ago
        Are safety inspectors intended to validate the design of a bridge? Or just that construction and materials are up to spec?
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  - aksss 6y ago
    > the world runs on off-brand duct tape So very, very true.
AdrianB1 6y ago
It is already costing as it should have that level of quality - a 24 million dollar system should be hard to justify that cost. The other option is to accept we have mediocre software that creates a number of problems that we are willing to accept; NO, not when people's lives are at stake.
malka 6y ago
Good, this is precisely the objective.

ryanong 6y ago

that doesn't sound bad to me if we are dealing with people's life or people's freedoms

Draiken 6y ago

I have to say that sounds exactly how this kind of software should be built. We're not talking about the newest social media hype. This software actually matters. Specially since today most of these bureaucratic processes can't be done without these softwares.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>I have to say that sounds exactly how this kind of software should be built. You see this in every topic. Every "muh pride in muh trade" person says something like this about the relevant trade but the fact of the matter is that the world runs on off-brand duct tape, harbor freight tools, walmart jeans, economy tires, and all sorts of other "value" solutions and the race to the bottom is what has given us much of the modern world that we take for granted. A balance needs to be struck. And it generally needs to be struck further toward the "quickly and cheaply build it like crap but make it easy to override or reset" portion of the available solution space than anyone pontificating about quality on the internet will readily admit.
- handoflixue 6y ago
  We don't say "perfection is impossible" when it comes to bridges collapsing. We understand that yes, on rare occasion a bridge WILL collapse, but we go and find the people responsible, and we still hold them accountable. This is a level of accountability that basically every other field of engineering is held to, and they've all risen to the challenge and left the "off-brand duct tape" behind. Even within programming, planes don't fall out of the sky daily, so I feel safe assume the aerospace programmers are comfortable working with a high degree of responsibility. High speed traders are dealing with million-dollar stakes and a single mistake can make the news. I'd expect they've got a very accountable culture where people get fired when that happens. There are costs, yes, but there's also costs to keep 733 people illegally imprisoned - we're talking two man-years of peoples lives lost every DAY this goes on.
  - Aerroon 6y ago
    Why not hold the people accountable that deployed the tool? Ultimately the tool helps a human do the job. It doesn't do anything on its own. If a contractor shows up to do repairs in your house, but their hammer is faulty and the head flies through your window you don't talk to the hammer manufacturer. You talk to the contractor. It's the contractor's job to deal with wherever they got the hammer from. If software developers are held responsible for the software then expect costs to multiply. Nobody would directly sell you software either - they'd sell you a hardware and software bundle that you must use exactly as the developers say. If you input a value that's out of bounds then that's on you. The software also won't get updates and it will run on 20 year old hardware. That's not too dissimilar to what we have in aerospace, right? And developers aren't even held responsible there! It's the companies, so expect it to be worse than even that.
    - underwater 6y ago
      Would you blame the people who paid for the bridge for the collapse? Should they have understood the details and flagged where corners were cut. When it comes to critical system I think it's fair to say that the engineers who build it are the only ones who can fully understand the risk. This is the point behind accreditation. It forces the supplier to maintain a minimum bar for services to protect the reputation of the industry.
      - vinger 6y ago
        In real life the engineers don't police themselves. Before a bridge, house or even patio deck with a foundation is used a safety inspector needs to give approval.
        underwater 6y ago
        Are safety inspectors intended to validate the design of a bridge? Or just that construction and materials are up to spec?
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
- aksss 6y ago
  > the world runs on off-brand duct tape So very, very true.

AdrianB1 6y ago

It is already costing as it should have that level of quality - a 24 million dollar system should be hard to justify that cost. The other option is to accept we have mediocre software that creates a number of problems that we are willing to accept; NO, not when people's lives are at stake.

malka 6y ago

Good, this is precisely the objective.