A Cultural Laziness?

Dave - W6OVP

Doug - K3TZR

James Del Principe

Dave, based on your examples, it would be easy to agree with you and in many respects I do. That said, however, it is tempting to confuse an upgrade or added feature, feeling that it should have been provided in the first release. The problem is the nature of software. It can always be improved with features added. Then a developer must make a decision. When should a product or SW release be rolled out?   Should it have every possible feature?  In that case it would never see a customer.  Remember that perfection is the enemy of the good.  So I really don't disagree with you but considerations must be taken.     Best 73, Jim

James Charlton

Reggie

Just because there are certifications and standards do not mean civil engineers do not make mistakes with their bridge designs.  Last year, a newly built bridge collapsed in Miami, FL.  Medical doctors are educated for years, pass multiple certifications, and do years of residency, but they are not infallible.  They **** people every day.  Software engineering is no different.  Software engineers can run simulations, they can do alpha testing, and beta testing, but there are always bugs because no complex software program is perfect.  Look at Obamacare website.  They spend nearly $2 billions dollars creating that website, and it had major issues.  Sometimes money is not the issue.

Peter K1PGV

The author is right... software these days is sloppy. But he ascribes the cause to”laziness” which is not anywhere close to correct, in my observation. The abysmal state of software quality,, in my opinion, primarily has to do with three things: 1) A general acceptance, in the software dev and user communities, of bugs. People have been conditioned to expect that software doesn’t work correctly all the time. The make allowances for, and accept, that “well, THAT feature is obviously broken.” A lot of this inadvertent training comes from the web, where web based apps as frequently buggy in one or more browsers. 2) Slavish adherence to agile processes, which are often poorly understood and very badly managed. My antipathy toward agile for the type of software that I write professionally (operating systems) is well documented. For projects where agile is used, it is most often run by people who are clueless as to how it’s supposed to really work, and mostly serves as a DISincentive to carefully design, test, and perfect your code. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve head some idiot say “Just get something working and we’ll fix it in the next sprint” I’d own a PGXL today. Shipping software that’s not fully cooked is the definition of agile. When you couple this with the new trend of flighting releases and “testing in production” you get a whole culture based being proud to ship software that doesn’t really work. 3) A lack of value, or even understanding, of software architecture and design. I could write a whole article on this. It dovetails with the introduction of agile, also. With the push to “just get something working” nobody values, and few people understand, defining an overall architecture for a system. There’s little architecture done these days. Design is not architecture. So... it’s not laziness. It’s worse than laziness. It’s failure of the underlying systems of how most software is written. It’s conflating “I through some **** together and it seems to work pretty well” with “I designed and implemented a solution.” Peter K1PGV

James Del Principe

James, I just had to chuckle. In my past life, I spent 43 years in medical x-ray for a manufacturer.  We did alpha testing in house and beta testing for selected customers (volunteers).....still had issues over time with weird combinations of usage or even certain dates....a September 1 fault and a leap year fault......  customers were NOT amused.

KC0EM

Doug - K3TZR

Reggie, I think you are correct; standards don't stop these types of failures. Nothing will ever be perfect but the software development world is the "wild west" in many businesses. In my experience, hardware companies are the worst, their view is that software is an unfortunate need to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

As we are in the process of inserting software into every aspect of life I'm hoping that the 737 fiasco will be a wakeup call that some safer, more thoughtful approach is needed.

James Del Principe

I think you are on to something here. Too much of a disconnect between developer and end user. BTW, you are never too old to contribute. In my case, I am old on the outside but young on the inside.

k0eoo

Steve Sampson

People - and their desire to make things work properly - hasn't changed.  Systems today are so very much more complicated than any historic levels (and I've run a number of developmental programs), the opportunities to make - or miss - mistakes pushes human ability.  Complexity and perfection don't play well together.   

Craig Williams

Resistance is futile. 

James Del Principe

but......capacitance is reactive.

James Charlton

Hi James,
Thank you.  Another fundamental rule in the software business is:  "Never buy version 1.0."

In the interest of full disclosure, I've been both a software writer and tester, but that doesn't stop me from making fun of my fellow code-monkeys.

I believe there is some theory that says no program can never be proven to be bug-free.  As you point out, there are so many combinations of inputs etc that it is almost impossible to test them all.  

One method of testing was to set up a test bed and start the new code and measure how long it took for a bug to reveal itself.  At first, that Time to Failure was measured in seconds.  But as fixes were implemented it stretched out to hours and days.  So, the question wasn't is the software bug free, but how long do we test before it can be released?

That was a management, not a technical, decision.

I'm not trying to justify sloppy or buggy code.  Now that I'm retired and out of the business of writing and testing it I say that all code should be signed by the author so we can find them and take away their keyboards!  Better yet, their phone numbers should be published so we can call them at night and weekends then their stuff doesn't work!

That was a lot of work, now it's time for my nap.
73,
  Jim Charlton  AD0AB

Patrick

A lot that goes on in product design is driven by the marketing side of the business. I think that this was something that will be shown in the Boeing incidents. The desire to compete with the competition on price some times trumps the engineering side. In this compromising safety, with unintended or on educated sales force actions. On the engineering side trying to get the software to account for all conditions no matter how trivial has consequences. Evaluation is difficult and time consuming and can be costly the more complex the engineering. Is.

Erika - KØDD

Patrick

I think in this case the 737 MAX was designed to have the complete package installed. Eliminating part of the package had unintended results. Yes training is a factor, and not doing proper training exasperated the problem. This is why Boeing is installing the complete package with sw updates and requiring more training to insure that there is no repeat.

Mark K1LSB

"I think in this case the 737 MAX was designed to have the complete package installed. Eliminating part of the package had unintended results."

Pat,

What part of the "package" didn't Boeing install?

Jay Nation

Mark K1LSB

Erika - KØDD

Mark I believe we're talking about the optional DUAL Angle of Attack Sensors vs a Single AOA Option for Less $$$  plus the little indicators lights on the displays stating the two sensors are NO LONGER IN AGREEMENT and HELLO its time to figure which one is really working...

I believe any additional code they write will be an attempt to make the Troubleshooting and Notification Process easier for ALL PILOTS not just the Smart Ones with advanced diagnostic skills or the proper Simulator Training..

No Matter what, this last crew correctly disabled the MCAS system briefly I bet in a guess or by golly move...  Maybe hoping the aircraft attitude would magically self correct for some reason I suspect. (It's not going to.  They needed to retrim the bird themselves) 

Unfortunately when the A/C trim didn't magically self correct they flipped the thing back on and the Pitch Trim did a runaway nose down situation, resulting in a Big Hole in the Desert with innocent victims burning and tossed haphazardly around the Crater.  What Can I do at this point other than shake my head.

In the meantime Boeing isn't shipping 737 Airplanes and are hemorrhaging dollar Signs by the billions.

One thing I DO want to state...  Between Airbus and Boeing they've had each a share of fatal crashes on the 737 and Airbus Equivellent Unit...  737's had worn out trim **** bushings in the tails and resulting crashes, and Airbus had the verticals just plain old breaking off and crashing.  This size aircraft is not only the most common, but are flown with the most takeoff and landing cycles... Have a nice day.

Erika DD


Jay Nation