4 ms·

Yes! There are some industries that will not tolerate seat-of-the-pants development. Functional safety requirements make a nice tall fence to keep out risky dev

Yes! There are some industries that will not tolerate seat-of-the-pants development. Functional safety requirements make a nice tall fence to keep out risky developers. Which is why china automakers have no such regulations.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
Sorry to burst your bubble, but FuSa dev teams are often full of "risky developers" who frankly shouldn't be within mile of any codebase your life depends on. You can only hope the safety culture and tooling keeps them in check. There's genuinely good parts of the standards, but a lot of the rituals are just checklist items to assure certification authorities you have a defined process similar to what they've seen before, regardless of whether that's actually effective at issue reduction/detection. In many cases, they're actually counterproductive and encourage people to focus on minute, obscure error sources rather than addressing significantly more common issues like memory safety and undefined behavior.
- demondemidi 3y ago
  Thanks for your insight! As someone who has lead FuSa certification on multiple automotive products, I can’t disagree with you more. But maybe you just had a bad experience.
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    I've also led the process at multiple companies. It's a big enough space that there's definitely room for different experiences, even within the same companies. That said, I'm surprised you've never encountered issues with people e.g. not understanding how serious UB is vs other types of issues in C-family languages. That's fairly universal even among developers from what I've seen.
    - demondemidi 3y ago
      I think you might be confusing software standards with functional safety standards. They are related, but one is required by the other. FuSa from my role has been predominantly architecture and process. Developers do need to follow coding and documentation guidelines. If they are fighting that then there are bigger problems with leadership.
      - AlotOfReading 3y ago
        It's one of the [major] hazards you have to deal with in FuSa software systems, so I'd say it goes under both. So much of 26262-6 is about limiting the scope of those those sorts of issues that just waving it away as a prerequisite ends up being neither practical nor realistic.

AlotOfReading 3y ago

Sorry to burst your bubble, but FuSa dev teams are often full of "risky developers" who frankly shouldn't be within mile of any codebase your life depends on. You can only hope the safety culture and tooling keeps them in check. There's genuinely good parts of the standards, but a lot of the rituals are just checklist items to assure certification authorities you have a defined process similar to what they've seen before, regardless of whether that's actually effective at issue reduction/detection. In many cases, they're actually counterproductive and encourage people to focus on minute, obscure error sources rather than addressing significantly more common issues like memory safety and undefined behavior.

demondemidi 3y ago
Thanks for your insight! As someone who has lead FuSa certification on multiple automotive products, I can’t disagree with you more. But maybe you just had a bad experience.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  I've also led the process at multiple companies. It's a big enough space that there's definitely room for different experiences, even within the same companies. That said, I'm surprised you've never encountered issues with people e.g. not understanding how serious UB is vs other types of issues in C-family languages. That's fairly universal even among developers from what I've seen.
  - demondemidi 3y ago
    I think you might be confusing software standards with functional safety standards. They are related, but one is required by the other. FuSa from my role has been predominantly architecture and process. Developers do need to follow coding and documentation guidelines. If they are fighting that then there are bigger problems with leadership.
    - AlotOfReading 3y ago
      It's one of the [major] hazards you have to deal with in FuSa software systems, so I'd say it goes under both. So much of 26262-6 is about limiting the scope of those those sorts of issues that just waving it away as a prerequisite ends up being neither practical nor realistic.