A public forum for discussing the design of software, from the user interface to the code architecture. Now closed.
Heh. I have read a few threads / posts here re: perfection of space shuttle software and how we as developers should aspire to its lofty perfection in terms of engineering, bug-freedom and quality.
Arguments of budget, limit in scope, well-defined specifications and lack of "real-world" pressures notwithstanding, it's encouraging to read the following:
The article says "shuttle's computers", so I am not sure if it's purely hardware or in fact software-related, but it still provides a refreshing contrast to http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html
I hold to the notion that if a human is involved, anywhere, that it won't be perfect...
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
260 developers spending 20 years on the same program, with exact specs spelled out before hand.. not saying it's not impressive, but only having 1 customer sure must help..
Friday, November 10, 2006
"Why did the raccoon cross the road?
To show the Possum it COULD be done!"
I think the Shuttle software is just one datapoint that shows that Life-Safety software IS possible.
I'm not saying it's the ONLY datapoint, or even that it's a particularly GOOD datapoint. And even then, there may be 'slight' systems bugs that require a manual work-around. But at least they're KNOWN to be an issue.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
I've always liked the Space Shuttle software story as an explanation for imperfect software, ie:
Customer: Your software has bugs, why can't it be bug free?
Me: Software can be bug-free (provides link), here's what it costs. You can't afford it.
Monday, November 13, 2006
This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.Other recent topics
Powered by FogBugz