3 ms·
That's still an architecture defect. Software's accuracy being affected by load is completely unacceptable.
by jki275 4y ago
That's still an architecture defect.
Software's accuracy being affected by load is completely unacceptable.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoPlease let us know where these software magicians are that write perfect, bug-free code.
- jki275 4y agoWho said anything about that? You're arguing against a straw man nobody has set up but yourself.. There's no such thing as perfect software, but there is definitely software that doesn't make up a false value if it can't work.
- forgottenlogin9 4y agoAnd if there is a bug in the logic that determines if it can or can’t work?
- puffoflogic 4y agoFor what it's worth, I had the same reaction upon reading this paragraph. It seems there are HN commenters who understand software design and those who do not. To be fair to the other commenters, it's conceivable that the practical difference between the current unsound architecture and a sound replacement might come down to to some small defect. But an attempt to fix the problem by fixing just the defect, even some kind of RCA process on it, will fail if the architecture itself is not fixed, and that requires a change in attitudes and understanding by the devs responsible for the system, not just a software change. That is where the real flaw lies. But some people don't believe that it's possible for the flaw to be in these places, outside the code. All the RCAs in the world can't help them.