5 ms·

He is right about the effect all those regulations have on innovation. I remember too, about 10 years ago talking with some programmers from a major car compan

He is right about the effect all those regulations have on innovation. I remember too, about 10 years ago talking with some programmers from a major car company, they had to fill out 17 pages of documentation in order to change a few lines of code in their system.

evgen 18y ago
When you have a bug in your code it is unlikely to lead to real people dying; this is a distinct possibility for code that helps control multi-ton pieces of metal bombing around at a mile a minute run by poorly trained operators over incredibly varied conditions and terrain. In systems control software the key to reducing defects is having a good process and sticking to it without exception.
potatolicious 18y ago
And this is precisely the way it should be. Everything when it comes to cars has to be meticulously documented. You reduce the diameter of that bolt by 0.01", thinking it'll save the company some money, and be strong enough to do its job, and somebody will later come, assuming the bolts weren't changed, and put more load on it. And then one will snap, resulting in a horrific crash that kills everyone in the car. And then the company gets sued, and pays out millions in compensation, not to mention the guilt of having shoddy engineering kill someone. Code is no less capable of killing innocent people. You might think that this sort of bureaucracy stifles innovation, or reduces your productivity - but the fact of the matter is that it saves lives, not to mention documents proper liability, etc etc.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  I would like to see a cost/benefit study of such onerous regulation. "It saves lives" is a cop out justification the same way "for the children" is. Costs. Benefits. Calculate you some, or get out of the way.
  - aswanson 18y ago
    Ok, I'm out of the way. Catch you later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm
  - noonespecial 18y ago
    It so true though, that it bears nearly continuous repeating. As a society, we have to make a choice. How many fatalities are we willing to accept per million vehicle miles? The answer can't be zero unless we want no cars at all. The onerous regulations are how we as a society choose that number. Are the regulation always efficient? No. But they are how we choose. Its also important to remember that other counties and peoples with different world views will have radically different conceptions as to what this acceptable number is.
- patrickg-zill 18y ago
  This was not software for cars (I should have been more specific). It was accounting or ERP software of some kind.

evgen 18y ago

When you have a bug in your code it is unlikely to lead to real people dying; this is a distinct possibility for code that helps control multi-ton pieces of metal bombing around at a mile a minute run by poorly trained operators over incredibly varied conditions and terrain. In systems control software the key to reducing defects is having a good process and sticking to it without exception.

potatolicious 18y ago

And this is precisely the way it should be. Everything when it comes to cars has to be meticulously documented. You reduce the diameter of that bolt by 0.01", thinking it'll save the company some money, and be strong enough to do its job, and somebody will later come, assuming the bolts weren't changed, and put more load on it. And then one will snap, resulting in a horrific crash that kills everyone in the car. And then the company gets sued, and pays out millions in compensation, not to mention the guilt of having shoddy engineering kill someone. Code is no less capable of killing innocent people. You might think that this sort of bureaucracy stifles innovation, or reduces your productivity - but the fact of the matter is that it saves lives, not to mention documents proper liability, etc etc.

Prrometheus 18y ago
I would like to see a cost/benefit study of such onerous regulation. "It saves lives" is a cop out justification the same way "for the children" is. Costs. Benefits. Calculate you some, or get out of the way.
- aswanson 18y ago
  Ok, I'm out of the way. Catch you later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm
- noonespecial 18y ago
  It so true though, that it bears nearly continuous repeating. As a society, we have to make a choice. How many fatalities are we willing to accept per million vehicle miles? The answer can't be zero unless we want no cars at all. The onerous regulations are how we as a society choose that number. Are the regulation always efficient? No. But they are how we choose. Its also important to remember that other counties and peoples with different world views will have radically different conceptions as to what this acceptable number is.
patrickg-zill 18y ago
This was not software for cars (I should have been more specific). It was accounting or ERP software of some kind.