3 ms·

No. Not any more. Programming should be as dull as operating a sawmill. I knew a guy, his construction company built half of Lake Tahoe back in the day. When

No. Not any more. Programming should be as dull as operating a sawmill. I knew a guy, his construction company built half of Lake Tahoe back in the day. When he retired he built himself a work shop in the basement and made furniture until the day he died. It's incredible furniture. I'm sitting at one of his desks, on one of his chairs. 40 years old and still in excellent condition, and beautiful! Helical legs. You cannot buy furniture like this in the store. Handmade by a master craftsman at the height of his skill and knowledge. Made solely for the love of the craft and the joy of giving gifts. That kind of person has fun working. Computer programming IS fun to the kind of person who enjoys computer programming. Those people can do what they like. The rest of us want "boring" software: machines that get the job done, that don't break, that don't spew private data into the cloud willy-nilly, etc. If making that kind of software isn't intrinsically fun for you then maybe don't be a computer programmer? (We made a huge mistake making the normals think that learning a bit of JS was a viable career path.) Industrial software shouldn't be fun (except of course to the people who already find it fun to deliver solid working software!) - - - - In re: bugs being fun little learning opportunities... Margaret Hamilton worked out how to write bug-free software during the Apollo 11 project. The IT industry collectively went, "meh." We need a serious attitude adjustment.

jcgrillo 2y ago
Corrollary: people who build bridges don't think it's fun when bridges collapse, but bridge builders have had millenia of accumulated experience that inform the codes and practices of bridge building. That's what we lack in software. If you do electrical work that isn't up to code, you as the electrician are liable. That means literally that if you touch a system, and you were the last one to touch it, you're liable. So it better be up to code when you're done. It should be the same for computerers.
dualogy 2y ago
> Margaret Hamilton worked out how to write bug-free software during the Apollo 11 project. Since search engines suck so bad lately: anyone know a good complete summary of that method of hers?
- fragmede 2y ago
  ChatGPT is good at those kinds of questions.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  Not a summary but here are a bunch of docs on one version of her approach: https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2023/04/102737144-05-01-acc.pdf https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/20... And here is a critique: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA198753.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA198753.pdf
- carapace 2y ago
  "System design from provably correct constructs" by James Martin, although he doesn't properly credit Hamilton in my opinion: https://archive.org/details/systemdesignfrom00mart https://archive.org/details/systemdesignfrom00mart
chillpenguin 2y ago
> Margaret Hamilton worked out how to write bug-free software during the Apollo 11 project. The IT industry collectively went, "meh." I have tried to look into this before, and I never can find much information about it. Last I checked, her homepage was basically trying to sell some proprietary system to customers who have bought into her marketing about "bug-free software". But actually trying to figure out how it works, or how to do it oneself, has remained elusive. Saying "The IT industry collectively went, 'meh.'" is kind of misleading. It's not exactly clear _what_ she worked out, but I'm skeptical of the claim that she "worked out how to write bug-free software". And if she did, she isn't exactly shouting from the rooftops about how to do it.
armitron 2y ago
> Margaret Hamilton worked out how to write bug-free software during the Apollo 11 project. The IT industry collectively went, "meh." That's an often repeated myth but it collapses the moment one digs a bit further (rather than swallowing preposterous statements). She was a glorified manager at best, others did the programming that actually mattered. Hal Laning [2] was primarily responsible for what Hamilton gets credit for. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/18yum8s/no_margaret_hamilton_at_nasa_is_not_standing_next/ https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/18yum8s/no_marg... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LELUXyVDOKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LELUXyVDOKk
- carapace 2y ago
  Yeah this sort of after-the-fact character assassination is BS. People get jealous of other people's fame. One publicity photo and a little fame and you've got whole threads of folks tearing you down, "she was /just/ the team leader". Whatever.

jcgrillo 2y ago

Corrollary: people who build bridges don't think it's fun when bridges collapse, but bridge builders have had millenia of accumulated experience that inform the codes and practices of bridge building. That's what we lack in software. If you do electrical work that isn't up to code, you as the electrician are liable. That means literally that if you touch a system, and you were the last one to touch it, you're liable. So it better be up to code when you're done. It should be the same for computerers.

dualogy 2y ago

> Margaret Hamilton worked out how to write bug-free software during the Apollo 11 project. Since search engines suck so bad lately: anyone know a good complete summary of that method of hers?

fragmede 2y ago
ChatGPT is good at those kinds of questions.
Jtsummers 2y ago
Not a summary but here are a bunch of docs on one version of her approach: https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2023/04/102737144-05-01-acc.pdf https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/20... And here is a critique: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA198753.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA198753.pdf
carapace 2y ago
"System design from provably correct constructs" by James Martin, although he doesn't properly credit Hamilton in my opinion: https://archive.org/details/systemdesignfrom00mart https://archive.org/details/systemdesignfrom00mart

chillpenguin 2y ago

> Margaret Hamilton worked out how to write bug-free software during the Apollo 11 project. The IT industry collectively went, "meh." I have tried to look into this before, and I never can find much information about it. Last I checked, her homepage was basically trying to sell some proprietary system to customers who have bought into her marketing about "bug-free software". But actually trying to figure out how it works, or how to do it oneself, has remained elusive. Saying "The IT industry collectively went, 'meh.'" is kind of misleading. It's not exactly clear _what_ she worked out, but I'm skeptical of the claim that she "worked out how to write bug-free software". And if she did, she isn't exactly shouting from the rooftops about how to do it.

armitron 2y ago

> Margaret Hamilton worked out how to write bug-free software during the Apollo 11 project. The IT industry collectively went, "meh." That's an often repeated myth but it collapses the moment one digs a bit further (rather than swallowing preposterous statements). She was a glorified manager at best, others did the programming that actually mattered. Hal Laning [2] was primarily responsible for what Hamilton gets credit for. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/18yum8s/no_margaret_hamilton_at_nasa_is_not_standing_next/ https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/18yum8s/no_marg... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LELUXyVDOKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LELUXyVDOKk

carapace 2y ago
Yeah this sort of after-the-fact character assassination is BS. People get jealous of other people's fame. One publicity photo and a little fame and you've got whole threads of folks tearing you down, "she was /just/ the team leader". Whatever.