3 ms·
But would you say it makes more sense to put extra burdens on the majority of good apples to protect the few bad apples? If we accept this as just an honest mi
by byuu 13y ago
But would you say it makes more sense to put extra burdens on the majority of good apples to protect the few bad apples?
If we accept this as just an honest mistake, then can you name anything a programmer could do that you would consider just plain negligent? We are never going to be able to catch 100% of all flaws.
At least to me, I think that if the people writing sensitive code had a bit more "on the line", that they'd be more inclined to be careful. It may slow down output, it may cost more for development, but for really, really important stuff? I think that's worth the cost.
- lutorm 13y agoSo you are OK with slowing down output by forcing people to be more careful out of fear, but not by putting in place a system that makes mistakes less likely? There are lots of experience about how to write code with few defects, and rather than focusing on punishing people who screw up or some idea that you just hire awesome people, it focuses on a process where mistakes are caught: http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff or, for a more detailed account, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110014946 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110014946 The fundamental fact is: you can't change human nature, no matter how much you may wish you could. One day, the bad apple may be you, and thinking you are somehow immune to making mistakes is a very dangerous delusion.