4 ms·
I used to think that, but recently I've come to think that if that were true, than software would be way better than it currently is, and hardware way worse. M
by craigyk 13y ago
I used to think that, but recently I've come to think that if that were true, than software would be way better than it currently is, and hardware way worse.
My impression is that it tends to be way easier to create a lot of moving parts in software where physics isn't there to act as a guide. In essence, it's way easier to make shitty software organically than it is with hardware.
- hkmurakami 13y agoIt could also be because we've had comparatively little time developing software.
- yen223 13y agoYour impression is true, and there's a good explanation for it. In my experience, the cost of software failure is much smaller than the cost of hardware failure. If your software fails, your robot might behave erratically. No problem, just revert to the last stable version and try again. OTOH if there's a mistake in the hardware spec, you will have to replace that $5000 sensor, or worse, your robot might electrocute someone. End result is you can get away with shitty software, but you can't get away with shitty hardware.
- heliotron 13y agoThe Therac 25 medical radiation accidents are an illustration of this point. The 25 had low-quality software running a robot with too few hardware safeties built in, and caused injuries and deaths. Previous Therac models had similarly defective software as the 25, but killed nobody due to having hardware safety features independent from software.