4 ms·
I wonder how they develop the code for these systems. You'd hope it might be something approaching the standards, rigours, and processes of the people who writ
by KwanEsq 14y ago
I wonder how they develop the code for these systems. You'd hope it might be something approaching the standards, rigours, and processes of the people who write the Space Shuttle code, but I have the sad feeling it probably isn't.
- ThomPete 14y agoI am pretty sure it is pretty strickt. As far as I understand code for airplanes in general is much more encapsulated to do one thing well without any resuability of the code as such. It's in other words strictly causal. Fighter jets might have more of an abstract layer for all the AI stuff so this might leave more room for an actual OS to reprogram and optimize on top off.
- ThomPete 14y agoIt might be perfectly possible that I am completely off on this. But my understanding from reading about it is that software is written very differently in airplanes than in most other fields. Down vote is fine if I am wrong. But would appreciate to learn how I am wrong then.
- dexen 14y agoJoint Strike Fighter programme (produced F-35) C++ coding standard: http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/JSF-AV-rules.pdf http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/JSF-AV-rules.pdf Been posted to HN before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3967316 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3967316 From a cursory read, it mostly boils down to ``don't do anything funky or too smart'', with the `too smart' bar is held somewhat low. Still, it asks programmers to use some decent stuff like the RAII idiom, for example (AV Rule 79).