Les wrote: > Hi, Frank, > I can't dispute that this is how software has developed. But that > still doesn't make it right. Would you drive over a bridge that had a > 10% or higher chance of failure? Or ride in an elevator with similar > risks? Of course not. Standards were developed that governed how those > things are designed based upon tragic failures. Yet software > engineering seems dead set on avoiding the issues surrounding the > effective standardization that makes this possible. IEEE and ACM both > have committees on software reliability, yet I don't know many engineers > who even know about the committees, much less read their proceedings or > make any attempt to discover what is known already about software > reliability, and how to incorporate it into their work. > Something to think about - how many years did it take, and how much experimentation, to get mechanical engineering to the point it is today? Compare that to the time programming has been around. We are still in the experimentation stage. Closed source and the way Microsoft follows the standards are not helping. Too many of the lessons learned are not being passed on. Now, as far as riding risky machines, it is done all the time. What are the chances of something breaking on your car? A motorcycle has a bigger risk. How many bridges develop cracks or other defects that have to be repaired? (Why are so many bridges being inspected right now?) For that matter, bridges have a much higher chance of failure then 10% That is why they have to be repaired/replaces. Bridges are designed with a lifespan of X years. Push them past that point, and you are asking for failure. The problems with software are closer to cracks in a bridge then total bridge failure. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
