4 ms·
And what would you have anyone do? You could formally spec software and implement it, congrats you're now 1000x slower to market and any change you want to mak
by voxl 4y ago
And what would you have anyone do?
You could formally spec software and implement it, congrats you're now 1000x slower to market and any change you want to make is another 1000x investment to spec out and prove.
And let's not even mention the ridiculous idea that open source developers be expected to do this. Moreover, this doesn't even handle hardware problems!
Okay, but we could just build all the software internally, reinvent all the wheels. But how is this any better? Now you have even less manpower to fix bugs and you're probably 100x slower to market because you're building all these half baked, bug ridden libraries.
If anything, the best idea is formally verified sandboxing, so that you have strong assurances about certain apps not doing bad stuff, but this doesn't solve all problems either.
It's an unsolvable problem in general, which is why no one has solved it.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoIt takes a lot longer to build houses that are up to building codes, and bridges that have 10x safety factors rather than 2x. There's a reason we have building codes and large safety factors. Software engineers are discovering this today.
- fisf 4y agoSoftware engineers are mostly aware of this. There is just little market demand for this level of robustness.
- ruined 4y agothere was no market demand for building codes, either. that's why they're laws
- ClumsyPilot 4y agobbut but mah free market gave us fire escapes attached to every building in new york, and they were made of wood!
- twunde 4y agoI know you're being sarcastic, but this reminded me of Tanya Reilly's _great_ talk "The history of fire escapes: How to fail". There's a recording up at https://www.infoq.com/presentations/history-fire-escapes-resilience/ https://www.infoq.com/presentations/history-fire-escapes-res...
- sebzim4500 4y agoCountries that pass laws making it 10x more difficult to develop software will not survive the next few decades.
- TheCapn 4y agoEngineering Code of Ethics dictate that safety of public and environment is paramount. I know that's true for my P.Eng governing body; it is written into our bylaws. I'm sure its the same for most others as well. I think until Software Engineering catches up in this regard with traditional Engineering disciplines we'll continue to see issues arise from the software realm. As much as the self-titled "Engineers" proclaim it, there's more to engineering than design and production.
- kelnos 4y agoI've always been uncomfortable calling myself a "software engineer" for this reason, and usually refer to myself as a "software developer". Most of the job listings I see at various companies use "engineer" though, and so my official title ends up being "engineer", so that's what I end up putting on my resume. (Though I guess I don't really need to do that; I could put whatever I want.)
- TheCapn 4y agoI am a Software Engineer. I'm licensed by our provincial body and have my P.Eng. and yeah, I still agree with you. I've been asked why I got my P.Eng as it does nothing for me career wise, but I always have the hope that we move towards a profession that does utilize engineers with proper accreditation and responsibilities where appropriate. I work in Industrial Controls and what my job has me doing does have safety concerns. We fired a student at one point working for us because his attitude towards the work was lackluster and lazy. I see it often enough in programs I'm asked to pick up and fix too. If Software Engineering wants respect, the profession needs to accept that we're going to piss off a lot of Developers & Architects using the title incorrectly. We still need to develop the proper rigor to take Engineering as a discipline seriously, but we also don't need to apply "Engineers" to every job.