zlacker

>>belter+(OP)
Every time I read about space engineering, I'm amazed by how contingencies have contingencies. It's so much careful planning and rigor compared to my world. I can always re-compile, re-deploy and regularly realize that my job is not life or death.

>>notyou+Bc1
Honestly, I'd say most engineering is like that outside of the software world. In the classic engineering disciplines with actual licensures at the end of the pipeline, the responsibility and ethics of this are ingrained into students from day 1. (Budget and importance of the application doesn't always allow for the indulgence of this though, at least to a point.)

This type of thinking also follows from decades of experience.

For some reason the software engineering world largely abandoned esteem and respect for all of the above.

>>Engine+pg1
I don't understand why this dig is constantly taken at software. Look at how many layers of fallbacks exist even on the average webapp written by junior devs. Optimistic rendering on form submissions, graceful degradation of features, falling back to last cached data, HTTP request retries with binomial exponential backoff and jitter, TCP packet retransmits, ECC corrections on servers, etc.

In cases where fault tolerance isn't as robust, it's for the same reasons as other disciplines you mentioned: budget and importance.

>>bilalq+7M1
I think it comes down to to a couple of things that software doesn't have that most other disciplines do:

Standardisation - in the big 'E' Engineering world, there would be a recognised international standard for Web Apps that ensured/enforced that all Web Apps supported this functionality, or they would not be approved for use.

Another factor is Accountability. A senior Software 'Engineer' would have to take personal responsibility (liability, accountability) that the software product they are producing and/or overseeing met all these requirements and personally sign off that these standards have been met. If the product were to fail at any point and it was determined that the cause was negligence in following the standard, any damages sought (not common, but not unheard of) would ultimately find their way to the accountable individual and their insurance.

In cases where budgets/importance don't allow for this level of scrutiny, there would still be paperwork signed by the producer of the software and the client acknowledging deviation from the standard and waiving any recourse for doing so.

>>dfex+ah2
> Standardisation

there is totally standardization. At the building block level. TCP/IP, Protocols on top of that, language standards etc.

Web Apps are complex, why would there be a standard? Just like there's no standard for cars, other than for some of their components like wheels or headlights.

>>fnord7+lE2
Aeroplanes are complex, but you can bet your life there are standards for those. And cars? Wow - I'm not sure which country you live in, but there are probably as many safety standards for road vehicles as there are for planes!

To continue the analogy from earlier - standards wouldn't mean all web applications would have to be designed, programmed and work exactly the same way, but it would mean that they would need to be formally tested (to an approved test plan), and to use your example, would need to demonstrate that each of those layers of fallbacks (as dictated by the standard and covered in the test plan) operate correctly in order to be certified.

If anything, I think software has a huge advantage over physical world engineering in that testing can be replicated at virtually no cost whenever a change is made to the design. I shudder to think how many cars get trashed in order to meet vehicle safety testing requirements.

>>dfex+VT2
you're confusing regulations with standards