|
lopatir wrote: Did you watch the Underbelly series ad it's offshoots?
I didn't, but I will surely try to remedy that 
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
And here is the 2005 movie which started the whole story: The Magician (2005) - IMDb[^]
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
I looked it up and it sounds delightfully sick: a dark comedy about a hit-man that also covers the more mundane aspects of his life, which are much like anyone's. Thanks for the recommendation!
|
|
|
|
|
Saw a comic strip the other day semi-joking about
Aeroplanes being relatively safe
Bridges being safe
then software built voting system - 😭
Several bits come to mind, some obvious like physical access.
But one that stands out the most is scale of access.
Recent Phillips light bulk hack indicates this train of though.
Breaking 1 bit of software potentially allows access to the whole thing.
Tampering a plane or bridge to fail are more localised to the one occurrence.
But "hack" a tesla, or digital polling station, and the spread risk is high.
So yes, funny as a joke, but seriously, it is not so much that software engineering is more poorly implemented (ignoring the 90% of low code quality) then physical engineering disciplines, but have a wider risk effect when flaws exist.
In contrast, software flaws can be fixed and updated/spread more rapidly then hardware flaws.
How long was the gap between enthusiast plan makers to standardised specification for commercial use? HIPPA offers a bunch of guides (if i understand HIPPA 🤷♂️).
How linnet is HIPPA compared to commercial plan requirements?
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever seen an (non-Boeing) aeroplane or bridge being built using the Agile methodology? 
maze3 wrote: but have a wider risk effect when flaws exist.
Like grounding an entire fleet of planes? Or recalling all cheeses from the supermarket due to contamination?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
ah yeah,
I guess i was thinking more along the lines of external threat actors, rather then inherit design failings
🤣 my mind is now imagining an agile built plane.
Developers: here, test this plane.
Results: did not take off and crashed into a wall. Killed 8 people.
Developers: Sorry about this, but could you details the issue a bit better, do you have some images of what the pilot was doing?
|
|
|
|
|
maze3 wrote: Developers: Sorry about this, but could you details the issue a bit better, do you have some images of what the pilot was doing?
Developers: It was a user error.
Oh gee, that sounds familiar. 
|
|
|
|
|
And then factor in support when you have a, let's call it suboptimal, product.
There the 'it's not my/our fault' really gets to shine. EG:I could not use a slightly advanced feature on an internet connection (open a port to the outside) and documented it had to be a problem ISP side. They kept repeating the same inane and refuted advice mixed with telling me what they couldn't do, never said a word to what they could do, until someone (bless him) decided my cablemodem was a bit old. They sent a replacement and stuff worked. Don't want to know what would have happened if my modem had been newish.
So I should be happy. And I am.
But look a bit closer and you will see that their actual assistance was zilk, without my own knowledge I would have been helpless, and that they probably easily avoided learning anything from this small incident, the more so since not closing an issue is regarded as bad perfomance. The guy who helped my out probably thought he did a good deed and left it there.
Upshot: support is (another) step down from product quality and even more likely to suffer under the letal mix of under pressure psychology and management. Quite comparable to boeing saying they will fix the software when they should fix the plane, and then having more critical (software) flaws discovered. Software to the rescue! Then support gets kicked up the ladder (to communication and higher) who are obviously completely unsuited for this job, but cannot admit it.
There are real disasters waiting to happen. But it won't be my fault (/s. I regard this sentence as the first law of psychology so I keep using it in sarcastic mode). I've just put on Industrial Disease (Dire Straits). Good for the mood.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Have you ever seen an (non-Boeing) aeroplane or bridge being built using the Agile methodology?
Well said. Nothing in the real world that I'm aware of uses Agile except supposedly software development. I think that says something (either about my ignorance or the stupidity of Agile, I suspect the latter, not the former.)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd also point out that physical engineering has thousands or hundreds of years of experience in building the things they build, where software has decades. Also, the time from design to implementation in their world is decades or years, not weeks.
They are different disciplines in that way; software can be (relatively) easily changed, bridges cannot. Thus, it might make sense to have different approaches.
I think the underlying point Marc's driving at is valid, though. There are areas of development where agile simply isn't acceptable: life-critical devices, software operating aircraft, financial markets, etc. Developers in those fields probably need to take an approach closer to engineering.
|
|
|
|
|
All manufacturing uses the agile methodology; they just don't call it agile, and everyone does the same thing every sprint.
Software is a special case, though, because it's more like bespoke carpentry, where the whole process, from ideation to design to production, can be carried out by one person -- or for bigger things, like making pianos, three guys get a leg each.
It's just a process for doing your daily work. Whether it's better or worse than other methods is purely a matter of taste -- for my tastes, it doesn't matter which method is followed (and I've done 'em all).
Just get the work done. If the process becomes your work, you're not a developer, any more.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
No, that's not agile; manufacturing has a clear and well-defined endproduct; there's no basement of a house while being undecided about the amount of stories, or the amount of stairs and elevators.
The only stuff that's agile outside our own trade, is pharmacy; medication that doesn't work, but has reliable side-effects gets re-marketed to that side-effect as being the main thing.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: medication that doesn't work, but has reliable side-effects gets re-marketed to that side-effect as being the main thing.
I'll have to assume that you have more knowledge than I about little blue pills.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
when the plane you are on crashes it tends to leave a mark on you,
when the bridge you're on crashes it tends to damage the paintwork,
when the app you're on crashes it just pisses you off.
after many otherwise intelligent sounding suggestions that achieved nothing the nice folks at Technet said the only solution was to low level format my hard disk then reinstall my signature. Sadly, this still didn't fix the issue!
|
|
|
|
|
lopatir wrote: when the app you're on crashes it just pisses you off.
That may be true for a lot of them; but sometimes an error may cause financial damage or endanger health.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
that's why I absolutely stay away from banking apps on my phone,
touch screens weren't designed for folks like me with bent and fat fingers.
Do you accept the T&C ... [as in you click the wrong thing it's your fault] No! damn, accidentally clicked Yes,
...uninstall ...no not: update
...uninstall ...uninstall ...UNINSTALL you POS
...finally
after many otherwise intelligent sounding suggestions that achieved nothing the nice folks at Technet said the only solution was to low level format my hard disk then reinstall my signature. Sadly, this still didn't fix the issue!
|
|
|
|
|
After 10 years engineering and building a plane: *safety inspectors doing years of rigorous testing in all manner of extreme conditions*
After 10 months of engineering and building a website: *our test team seeing the home page doesn't throw a 500 error*
|
|
|
|
|
I'm very reluctant to put the word "engineering" after "software". There isn't the same level of agreement about how to do things in the software community as there is in the engineering community. We have competing language families, processes, methodologies, and even design patterns (the latter being a stab at something that starts to look like engineering).
Engineering over-designs systems by a considerable factor to reduce the risk of failure. What's the equivalent in software, maybe building lots of defensive checks into the code? Still a pale imitation.
On the other hand, a customer who came back to the engineering team saying that he wanted his bridge lengthened by 200m on its "next release" would be laughed out of the room, as would someone who took his car to a mechanic and asked for it to be fixed ("patched") while still traveling down the road.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: as would someone who took his car to a mechanic and asked for it to be fixed ("patched") while still traveling down the road.
Tesla?
|
|
|
|
|
TSLAQ? 
|
|
|
|
|
Had to look up that.
I just don't understand that religion.
I also believe batteries is a dead end, and the future lies in fuel cells.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Engineering over-designs systems by a considerable factor to reduce the risk of failure. What's the equivalent in software, maybe building lots of defensive checks into the code? Still a pale imitation.
We can't afford the microseconds, you know...
I have been through several "ages" of SW development. When I started my studies (end 1970s), machines were so slow that there was a good reason to do all sorts of (unsafe) tricks to make the programs fast enought to be useful. Then we had some years ever faster machines, and the word was more or less "code any way you want; don't worry about speed - just switch to the next generation hardware if it is too slow". So coders ignored complexity issues of both data structures and algorithms (1980s). But as problem sizes grew, algorithmic complexity became important, and we started a new race against the microseconds that still lasts.
It has more or less become an obsession with us. We can never state "It is fast enough!" - if I can do it faster than you, then I am a better developer. Like, I made this Sudoko solver (not primarily for solving Sudoko puzzles, but to illustrate backtracking). The most difficult puzzle I found took 0.6 sec to solve. When I mentioned this to some other developers, I was immediately turned down: It can be done much faster than that! ... But who needs to solve Sudoko puzzles in much less than 0.6 sec? Beating each other by milliseconds is far more important than having robust code, even when the speed is really useful for nothing else than winning the race.
I learned a lesson quite early:
When PCs were entering the mainstream market, I talked with an architect who had got one. In the early days, drawing on a PC was out of the question; it was used for calculating project costs. Their main program went through the budget to verify that they had included the cost of all the required elements - door handles and locks and whatever. This architect told that in the first use of this program, it had reminded them of overlooked expenses significantly exceeding the cost of the PC and the software. The company was awarded the contract (on the adjusted budget), so the PC paid for itself in full on its very first serious job!
So I was curious about the PC hardware. CPU, harddisk ...
No, they didn't have any harddisk.
What?? The A: floppy held DOS and this database application, the B: floppy held their project data.
But - running it from floppies will take ages!
The architect shrugged: Maybe half an hour, maybe a couple hours on huge projects.
What? You can't wait for a couple hours to have the results?
The architect shook his head over my ignorance: Doing similar checks "by hand", without the aid of a computer, had used to require at least two man weeks, it could take a man month or more for bigger projects. Now they had the job done in a mere hour or two, automatically, actually at zero man hours! What are you talking about - why should we need to have it much faster than that?
If our goal was to give the users what they want and need, we have lots of resources to do that. But we rather enter into microsecond p*ssing contests. I think it is a great pity.
(Btw, these p*ssing contest are not always about microseconds; it can be any "quality" that is highly esteemed by coders. But speed is the dominant one.)
|
|
|
|
|
This one?
xkcd: Voting Software[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Hey now, don't bury it _my_ desert.
|
|
|
|
|
maze3 wrote: In contrast, software flaws can be fixed and updated/spread more rapidly then hardware flaws.
By the same token, newly introduced flaws or bugs are spread more rapidly to those trusting end users...especially mobile.
Confession...I once broke the auto-update feature for one of our products...not fun. Bugs happen.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
