4 ms·

That is because this is trivial to check and the systems are simple compared to software, so the cost imposition of the requirement to do so is minor. The softw

That is because this is trivial to check and the systems are simple compared to software, so the cost imposition of the requirement to do so is minor. The software engineering equivalent would be a requirement to always check return codes. I don't think anyone believes that would move the needle in the case of software. There is a lot of literature on civil engineering failures. In fact, my civil engineering education was largely structured as a study of engineering failures. One of the most striking things about forensic analysis of civil engineering failures, a lesson the professors hammered on incessantly, is that they are almost always the result of really basic design flaws that every first-year civil engineering student can immediately recognize. There isn't some elaborate engineering discipline preventing failures in civil engineering. Exotic failures are exceedingly rare.

thfuran 2y ago
So the defense for software is "I helped build a system so complex that even attempting to determine how it might fail was too hard, so it can't be my fault that it failed"?
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Unless you want to go back to the steam age, it’s not a defense, but all we are humanly capable of. Never forget as well that it only takes a single cosmic ray to flip a bit. Even if you code perfectly, it can still fail, whether in this way or countless other black swans. 2.8 trillion lines of code aren’t going to rewrite themselves overnight. And as any software developer can tell you, a rewrite would almost certainly just make things worse.
  - thfuran 2y ago
    It would cost an untenable amount of money to rebuild all buildings, but that hasn't stopped us from creating and updating building codes.
    - theamk 2y ago
      The cost plays a very important role in building codes, a lot of changes are either not made at all (because they will be prohibitely expensive), or spread out over many years. Plus, the bulding codes are safety-focused and often don't cover things that most people would consider defects: for example a huge hole in the interior wall is OK (unless it breaks fire or energy efficiency codes)
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  Not at all, you can have that today if you are willing to pay the costs of providing these guarantees. We know how and some organizations do pay that cost. Outside of those rare cases, everyone is demonstrably unwilling to pay the unavoidable costs of providing these guarantees. The idea that software can be built to a high-assurance standard by regulatory fiat and everyone just gets to freeload on this investment is delusional but that is what is often suggested. Also, open source software could not meet that standard in most cases. Furthermore, those guarantees can only exist for the narrow set of hardware targets and environments that can actually be validated and verified. No mixing and matching random hardware, firmware, and OS versions. You'll essentially end up with the Apple ecosystem, but for everything. The vast majority of people who insist they want highly robust software neither write software to these standards nor are willing to pay for software written to these standards. It is a combination of revealed preferences and hypocrisy.

thfuran 2y ago

So the defense for software is "I helped build a system so complex that even attempting to determine how it might fail was too hard, so it can't be my fault that it failed"?

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Unless you want to go back to the steam age, it’s not a defense, but all we are humanly capable of. Never forget as well that it only takes a single cosmic ray to flip a bit. Even if you code perfectly, it can still fail, whether in this way or countless other black swans. 2.8 trillion lines of code aren’t going to rewrite themselves overnight. And as any software developer can tell you, a rewrite would almost certainly just make things worse.
- thfuran 2y ago
  It would cost an untenable amount of money to rebuild all buildings, but that hasn't stopped us from creating and updating building codes.
  - theamk 2y ago
    The cost plays a very important role in building codes, a lot of changes are either not made at all (because they will be prohibitely expensive), or spread out over many years. Plus, the bulding codes are safety-focused and often don't cover things that most people would consider defects: for example a huge hole in the interior wall is OK (unless it breaks fire or energy efficiency codes)
jandrewrogers 2y ago
Not at all, you can have that today if you are willing to pay the costs of providing these guarantees. We know how and some organizations do pay that cost. Outside of those rare cases, everyone is demonstrably unwilling to pay the unavoidable costs of providing these guarantees. The idea that software can be built to a high-assurance standard by regulatory fiat and everyone just gets to freeload on this investment is delusional but that is what is often suggested. Also, open source software could not meet that standard in most cases. Furthermore, those guarantees can only exist for the narrow set of hardware targets and environments that can actually be validated and verified. No mixing and matching random hardware, firmware, and OS versions. You'll essentially end up with the Apple ecosystem, but for everything. The vast majority of people who insist they want highly robust software neither write software to these standards nor are willing to pay for software written to these standards. It is a combination of revealed preferences and hypocrisy.