3 ms·

I’m not pointing at a contemporary akin to Ford or Edsel. I’m pointing at people today using the latest versions of these tools today making the same class of m

• moomin 3y ago
  Ironically, Margaret Hamilton _was_ able to produce a bug free program back in the 60s. However, no-one is seriously considering replicating her techniques because they (some of them, ant least) are way too expensive for modern software.
  • marcus0x62 3y ago
    1) The Apollo Guidance Computer software was not bug-free[0] 2) The AGC software was not written in C++ The NASA approach to software development undoubtedly results in high quality assurance, but at a huge productivity cost that most commercials shops could not shoulder. What do you do about the huge amount of software that needs to be developed that is too complex and cannot justify things like having 5 independent concurrent executions running two completely separate but functionally identical code bases tested by a completely independent adversarial test team? I’d argue you could start by using tools that don’t allow, let alone encourage, your programmers to make common mistakes with catastrophic consequences. 0 — see, for instance, https://ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/COM-1.pdf https://ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/COM-1.pdf