you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 1 month ago (1 child)

While I see what you're getting at, I still like this XKCD. I work as a developer, and have also worked in more "handy" fields. The thing with planes, elevators, and basically all other physical things is that they're limited by physics. A steel beam can't suddenly decide to spontaneously fail or disappear.

With code, that can feel pretty different. With experience, I've basically learned to assume that there is always some edge-case I haven't considered, that could trigger a bug. In a building, you can have redundant bolts, and over-dimensioned supports. A small mistake somewhere, a single missing bolt, won't cause a catastrophic failure. With code, it's different: A tiny, hard to notice mistake, can bring the whole think crashing down. Imagine if a plane could crash because the paint had a slightly non-uniform thickness...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    A good example of software failing where traditional systems were more reliable is when Boeing tried to rely on it with MCAS on the 737 max

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You can confirm the structural integrity of the wings with a rather simple visual inspection. Same goes for the windows and landing gear.

    Try confirming the integrity of (tens- or hundreds of) thousands of lines of code with a similar kind of inspection...

  • source
  • parent