5 ms·
When I read that I was not so sure what the person who wrote that actually wanted to say. Cause it sounds a bit like: The SR-71 was built with solid engineeri
by callesgg 13y ago
When I read that I was not so sure what the person who wrote that actually wanted to say.
Cause it sounds a bit like:
The SR-71 was built with solid engineering and hard work, this on the other hand is a pice of shit.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dublinclontarf 13y agoYou only think that because you're(I assume) a programmer, which is how most programmers feel about their code.
- Crito 13y agoI think it is not an unreasonable observation that when a project encompases the state of the art of a wide variety of engineering disciplines, code is not given the same treatment or respect that hardware is. On one hand you have every single metal part being x-rayed to verify internal consistency; on the other hand the software development is a shitshow that needs to be whipped into shape in order to be done on time, let alone work well. Look at the history of the development of the AGC as an example. And which part of the LEM gave Armstrong and Aldrin trouble during the descent? And that is a success story, in the end it mostly worked.