5 ms·

I agree that formal methods probably isn’t as well known as it could/should be. > Also redundancy and fail-safes in logic are used throughout the system for sa

by ojl 5y ago

I agree that formal methods probably isn’t as well known as it could/should be. > Also redundancy and fail-safes in logic are used throughout the system for safety critical software. This again is easy to implement but tedious. I wouldn’t call implementing redundancy and fail safety for a fairly complex system easy though. Tedious, yes. And tedious but easy probably could describe lots of other engineering work as well, not only software. > Sometimes the engineer of the physical system itself just programs it himself. Alot of non-software engineers are like this because software engineering tends to be easy so they can just learn how to program. They might believe that it’s easy to write some software that in some way solves the problem but in my experience they don’t always engineer good software, and don’t always realise that their small part of the program has to work together with a huge amount of other software. Not that all software engineers do this either..

deltaonefour 5y ago
>I wouldn’t call implementing redundancy and fail safety for a fairly complex system easy though. What's the cutoff for IQ then to implement a redundancy. Is there really a mediocre software engineer who can't do it. My argument is with a lot of effort any software engineer can do it. And if anyone can do it.. it's easy. >They might believe that it’s easy to write some software that in some way solves the problem but in my experience they don’t always engineer good software, and don’t always realise that their small part of the program has to work together with a huge amount of other software. Not that all software engineers do this either.. As I've stated before. There's no logical theory behind program organization. How you integrate software together is mostly gut level arbitrary decisions and many times those decisions come out wrong and people make workarounds to fix things. It all usually ends up working in the end. It may be ugly but it works and then everyone rewrites and the cycle begins anew. Nobody in this area of software truly knows what they are doing. Hence why it's easy. Let me be clear about what I mean by easy. Easy means anyone can do it. If a lot of hardwork and problem solving effort is involved... it doesn't matter and it's still easy because anyone can do it.

by ojl 5y ago

deltaonefour 5y ago

>I wouldn’t call implementing redundancy and fail safety for a fairly complex system easy though. What's the cutoff for IQ then to implement a redundancy. Is there really a mediocre software engineer who can't do it. My argument is with a lot of effort any software engineer can do it. And if anyone can do it.. it's easy. >They might believe that it’s easy to write some software that in some way solves the problem but in my experience they don’t always engineer good software, and don’t always realise that their small part of the program has to work together with a huge amount of other software. Not that all software engineers do this either.. As I've stated before. There's no logical theory behind program organization. How you integrate software together is mostly gut level arbitrary decisions and many times those decisions come out wrong and people make workarounds to fix things. It all usually ends up working in the end. It may be ugly but it works and then everyone rewrites and the cycle begins anew. Nobody in this area of software truly knows what they are doing. Hence why it's easy. Let me be clear about what I mean by easy. Easy means anyone can do it. If a lot of hardwork and problem solving effort is involved... it doesn't matter and it's still easy because anyone can do it.