3 ms·

v8 maybe, but javascript isn't exactly a language known for having few footguns

TechBro8615 3y ago
I can see why you wouldn't want it running your guidance controller. But for interactivity, is there really a better choice? I would argue physical knobs and buttons are better, but if you've decided to write a software dashboard, what's a better option than Chromium + JS for interactivity? There are no formally verified GUI frameworks (AFAIK), so the only available evaluation metric is "how battle tested is it?" Surely Chromium wins just by sheer scale of deployment. What I'd be curious about is how they handle updates. The Web platform is a moving target, and it's not like Chromium engineers are pushing features with "astronomical" failure cases in mind. Even if the SpaceX software is perfectly tested, it could break in possibly uncovered ways with each new update. So does SpaceX keep it up to date and run the same battery of tests on each version? Or do they freeze the version and only update along with their normal SDLC? EDIT: FWIW, it looks like the original source of the Chromium claim is a Reddit AMA [0] with more details from the SpaceX software team. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/gxb7j1/we_are_the_spacex_software_team_ask_us_anything/ft5zou3/ https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/gxb7j1/we_are_the_s...
- sam_bristow 3y ago
  Qt does have a functional safety certified renderer available[1]. My expectation though is that the passenger UI isn't safety critical on Dragon. A "crash and restart" model is probably fine for what it's doing. [1] https://www.qt.io/product/functional-safety-and-qt https://www.qt.io/product/functional-safety-and-qt
- asddubs 3y ago
  I don't think it's fair to equate a dashboard written in javascript running on chromium + v8 to chromium + v8. Qt is pretty battle tested as well, and more easily allows you to stick to built-in widgets which are equally battle tested. Although I think ultimately both suffer from the fact that they are moving targets with active development of new features.

I can see why you wouldn't want it running your guidance controller. But for interactivity, is there really a better choice? I would argue physical knobs and buttons are better, but if you've decided to write a software dashboard, what's a better option than Chromium + JS for interactivity? There are no formally verified GUI frameworks (AFAIK), so the only available evaluation metric is "how battle tested is it?" Surely Chromium wins just by sheer scale of deployment. What I'd be curious about is how they handle updates. The Web platform is a moving target, and it's not like Chromium engineers are pushing features with "astronomical" failure cases in mind. Even if the SpaceX software is perfectly tested, it could break in possibly uncovered ways with each new update. So does SpaceX keep it up to date and run the same battery of tests on each version? Or do they freeze the version and only update along with their normal SDLC? EDIT: FWIW, it looks like the original source of the Chromium claim is a Reddit AMA [0] with more details from the SpaceX software team. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/gxb7j1/we_are_the_spacex_software_team_ask_us_anything/ft5zou3/ https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/gxb7j1/we_are_the_s...

sam_bristow 3y ago
Qt does have a functional safety certified renderer available[1]. My expectation though is that the passenger UI isn't safety critical on Dragon. A "crash and restart" model is probably fine for what it's doing. [1] https://www.qt.io/product/functional-safety-and-qt https://www.qt.io/product/functional-safety-and-qt
asddubs 3y ago
I don't think it's fair to equate a dashboard written in javascript running on chromium + v8 to chromium + v8. Qt is pretty battle tested as well, and more easily allows you to stick to built-in widgets which are equally battle tested. Although I think ultimately both suffer from the fact that they are moving targets with active development of new features.