2 ms·
As someone who writes software, the fact that it must be a bug is scant consolation when it crashes. It just means that you have no hope to prevent it by reflex
by LeifCarrotson 6y ago
As someone who writes software, the fact that it must be a bug is scant consolation when it crashes. It just means that you have no hope to prevent it by reflex, you had to fix it by thinking intentionally and carefully a long time ago when you wrote the software.
- thelean12 6y agoAs someone who has written robot software, it's not as bad as you might think. You do a LOT of testing before hand, and you do system checks before committing to something. I was always more worried about sensor failures that my software doesn't pick up on. Then again none of my robots ever cost $80 million dollars and has landed on Mars...
- LeifCarrotson 6y agoI have written robot software...curious what context you were in. I've been doing industrial automation with commercial robot arms, where testing is mostly functional and there's very few system checks. You're basically jogging the robot with the teach pendant, recording points, and reading digital IO. There are minimal system checks, simulation is mostly to make sure the cell CAD layout is reachable and less to verify that things are working correctly. Version control is completely offline, there's not even an "undo" feature to revert a touched up point unless you underwent a tedious and slow backup procedure. That said, like you, none of my robots cost more than 6 figures, and they're all permanently anchored to terrestrial steel and concrete...