3 ms·
If you truly have "no room for error" (i.e. you are shipping code to a hundred-billion-dollar space vehicle), you might have: - Very strict coding guidelines
by superuser2 12y ago
If you truly have "no room for error" (i.e. you are shipping code to a hundred-billion-dollar space vehicle), you might have:
- Very strict coding guidelines
- Rigorous code review
- An extremely thorough test suite
- Multi-stage approval through a QA process involving many pairs of eyes and thorough, formally defined and scientifically rigorous test procedures
- Static analysis and possibly even algorithms proved correct in Coq
Simply playing with it in staging for a while and determining that everything looks good is NOT the kind of testing that you do when there's "no room for error."
- adamnemecek 12y agoNo room for error probably means one thing to people working on a $10^11 space vehicle and something else to webdevs. Does that surprise you?
- BillinghamJ 12y agoAs a statement, it is absolute.
- markc 12y agoAs a statement, it is meaningless.
- superuser2 12y agoWebdevs (particularly on HN) are highly vocal about TDD/automated testing in general and there is a great deal of tooling around testing Rails and Django. Code review is also part of the fairly dated Joel Test and widely regarded on HN as a good idea. These are substantially higher bars than "play with it for a while and see if you can break anything."
- maninalift 12y agoeven if software is formally verified, and even assuming the specification is both totally accurate and complete, there is plenty of room for issues at software deployment in a multi-component system such as this