2 ms·

> In total, the team made over 100,000 lines of flight-critical software changes across 21 test flights. I'm sure they're working much more rigorously than typ

by neilv 3y ago

> In total, the team made over 100,000 lines of flight-critical software changes across 21 test flights. I'm sure they're working much more rigorously than typical "tech" company software developers, and maybe the writer used that sentence to commend the scale of effort that contributed to a success. But, to a tech industry software engineer ear, the sentence sounds different. Heavy reactive software changes would typically mean a lot of defects and tech debt introduced. Here's to hoping that autonomous fighter jets aren't programmed anything at all like cat pictures sharing apps are. ("Commit #37f2ad30 - Fixed missing minus sign that had airplane flying upside-down.")

peteradio 3y ago
Could be many lines of removed code. I imagine they may have introduced a simpler interface offloading governance to configuration data.
dj_gitmo 3y ago
$ cargo update +8,967 −7,331
wyldberry 3y ago
it's also likely that lines is higher than normal because of how close to bare metal they have to be.
wrenky 3y ago
Seriously, that line strikes fear into my heart and I only handle rest APIs not billion dollar airplanes with actual people in them.
- jg6vd 3y ago
  Dont go by the price tag. Thats just MIL complex accounting called "Cost plus" which means price = cost + whatever they feel like. Cuz Govt cant go anywhere else to buy this stuff.
  - csa 3y ago
    > Thats just MIL complex accounting called "Cost plus" which means price = cost + whatever they feel like. Directionally correct, but technically incorrect. The fudge factor is in the “cost”. The “plus” (essentially the profit) is set.
vishalontheline 3y ago
As the cost of failure rises, so does the value of the test suite.
verst 3y ago
100,000 LOC modified - 21 tests. Ship it. In all seriousness, I hope that includes simulation code / integration tests and the 21 test flights were essentially E2E tests.
rmbyrro 3y ago
> I'm sure they're working much more rigorously than typical "tech" company software developers I was sure about Boeing as well.

by neilv 3y ago

peteradio 3y ago

Could be many lines of removed code. I imagine they may have introduced a simpler interface offloading governance to configuration data.

dj_gitmo 3y ago

$ cargo update +8,967 −7,331

wyldberry 3y ago

it's also likely that lines is higher than normal because of how close to bare metal they have to be.

wrenky 3y ago

Seriously, that line strikes fear into my heart and I only handle rest APIs not billion dollar airplanes with actual people in them.

jg6vd 3y ago
Dont go by the price tag. Thats just MIL complex accounting called "Cost plus" which means price = cost + whatever they feel like. Cuz Govt cant go anywhere else to buy this stuff.
- csa 3y ago
  > Thats just MIL complex accounting called "Cost plus" which means price = cost + whatever they feel like. Directionally correct, but technically incorrect. The fudge factor is in the “cost”. The “plus” (essentially the profit) is set.

vishalontheline 3y ago

As the cost of failure rises, so does the value of the test suite.

verst 3y ago

100,000 LOC modified - 21 tests. Ship it. In all seriousness, I hope that includes simulation code / integration tests and the 21 test flights were essentially E2E tests.

rmbyrro 3y ago

> I'm sure they're working much more rigorously than typical "tech" company software developers I was sure about Boeing as well.