5 ms·

The issue is not because of the language used. You can have bugs - potentially fatal as this case underlines - in any language. When I studied the Therac case

by mortov 13y ago

The issue is not because of the language used. You can have bugs - potentially fatal as this case underlines - in any language. When I studied the Therac case, there was also a study in the "Killer Robot" - see here : http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/5122.aspx http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/5122.aspx. Well worth a read to understand how software can become dangerous. Sadly nowadays, a search for Killer Robot turns up all sorts of stories of drones being used to kill people. When I first looked up killer robot a number of years ago, the results were pretty much all about the ethics scenario and not real life people being killed. How society has moved on...

evincarofautumn 13y ago
> You can have bugs - potentially fatal as this case underlines - in any language. That is undoubtedly true. However, the commonest classes of bugs can be ruled out by languages with more expressive static verification tools—type systems, effect systems, and so on—leaving us with a stronger baseline from which to work.
pjmlp 13y ago
> The issue is not because of the language used. You can have bugs - potentially fatal as this case underlines - in any language. This is true, however there are languages which allow for more programming errors than others. I just mentioned C as one possible example. The goal should be to have programming languages that reduce programming errors, not that make it easier to shot yourself. Of course this is only a small step towards better software, as whole system design also plays a big role.
Piskvorrr 13y ago
Also relevant (and on HN newest as of now) - Toyota accelerator issue: http://embeddedgurus.com/state-space/2014/02/are-we-shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot-with-stack-overflow/ http://embeddedgurus.com/state-space/2014/02/are-we-shooting...
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  This one isn't merely an example of a failure of engineering, but also of organizational failure at Toyota, and organizational failure at both the NHTSA and NASA.

by mortov 13y ago

evincarofautumn 13y ago

> You can have bugs - potentially fatal as this case underlines - in any language. That is undoubtedly true. However, the commonest classes of bugs can be ruled out by languages with more expressive static verification tools—type systems, effect systems, and so on—leaving us with a stronger baseline from which to work.

pjmlp 13y ago

> The issue is not because of the language used. You can have bugs - potentially fatal as this case underlines - in any language. This is true, however there are languages which allow for more programming errors than others. I just mentioned C as one possible example. The goal should be to have programming languages that reduce programming errors, not that make it easier to shot yourself. Of course this is only a small step towards better software, as whole system design also plays a big role.

Piskvorrr 13y ago

Also relevant (and on HN newest as of now) - Toyota accelerator issue: http://embeddedgurus.com/state-space/2014/02/are-we-shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot-with-stack-overflow/ http://embeddedgurus.com/state-space/2014/02/are-we-shooting...

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
This one isn't merely an example of a failure of engineering, but also of organizational failure at Toyota, and organizational failure at both the NHTSA and NASA.