zlacker

[return to "NASA mistakenly severs communication to Voyager 2"]
1. notyou+Bc1[view] [source] 2023-07-31 16:41:15
>>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.
◧◩
2. Engine+pg1[view] [source] 2023-07-31 16:56:25
>>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.

◧◩◪
3. bilalq+7M1[view] [source] 2023-07-31 19:16:24
>>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.

◧◩◪◨
4. MrJohz+HY1[view] [source] 2023-07-31 20:22:19
>>bilalq+7M1
It's also completely untrue that the norm outside of software engineering, I think this perception comes because we only think of the big engineering projects like NASA or building projects, and forget how broad engineering is and can be. I worked for a company that mainly did electrical engineering, and there was plenty of happy-path work that just assumed the error cases would happen rarely or be handled somewhere else. It was also quite difficult to get good change control working, and automated testing was painful and irregular. (In fairness, automated testing was also a lot harder, but we could have worked harder on it and caught a lot more issues early on.)

My impression from friends working in other engineering disciplines is that software engineering works similarly to other fields: the more risk to human lives is involved, the more testing, redundancy, etc is involved.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. fnord7+0E2[view] [source] 2023-08-01 00:29:35
>>MrJohz+HY1
OceanGate
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. HeyLau+XE5[view] [source] 2023-08-01 20:35:05
>>fnord7+0E2
They said engineering, not randomly hacking at stuff.
[go to top]