Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

They Write the Right Stuff (1996)

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)

#11

Post by justaguyhere »

epr wrote: post #10

> How do they write the right stuff? The article claims that it is their process, and although they are certainly extremely thorough, I don't buy it. At the very least, they cannot be compared to most developers apples to apples. Why? > NASA and the Lockheed Martin group agree in the most minute detail about everything the new code is supposed to do — and they commit that understanding to paper, with the kind of spec…

I guess it all depends on the type of software that one is writing. If there is a bug in NASA's software, it will cost them tons of money and might put them back months or years in schedule. It makes sense to be extremely careful. Same applies to software used in medical devices, cars etc where lives are at stake.

If my todo app has a bug or even goes down a full day, the impact is not severe. I guess it is okay to change specs within reason - if a project is managed well and communication between the parties involved is great, some amount of flexibility in specs can be accomodated in most non-life threatening projects.

Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)

#12

Post by chrisfinazzo »

epr wrote: post #10

> How do they write the right stuff? The article claims that it is their process, and although they are certainly extremely thorough, I don't buy it. At the very least, they cannot be compared to most developers apples to apples. Why? > NASA and the Lockheed Martin group agree in the most minute detail about everything the new code is supposed to do — and they commit that understanding to paper, with the kind of spec…

This seems incredibly short sighted.

To wit, the fact that Keller - or whoever is in that role these days - has to certify that the code and the system it runs on will work as expected speaks volumes about how serious this is.

If it doesn't, things tend to blow up, which is sure to ruin your day.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Therac-25, a medical device which killed or severely injured several patients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

In these cases, arguing over every change to code seems like the only way they can guarantee with any certainty that it works correctly.

Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)

#13

Post by sizzzzlerz »

I certainly do not begrudge the efforts that go into building the shuttle software the process they must follow to ensure their code remains at such a high level of quality. When you have essentially an unlimited budget you can achieve a lot with competent managers, staff, and a process that is well-defined and understood and, most importantly, enforced. I don't know the details here but I'd be willing to bet that the cost of developing and maintaining their code greatly exceeds that of the vast majority of successful software efforts on a per line of code basis.

It gets back to the old saying: Cheap, Fast, Better. Pick two.

Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)

#14

Post by gdubs »

epr wrote: post #10

> How do they write the right stuff? The article claims that it is their process, and although they are certainly extremely thorough, I don't buy it. At the very least, they cannot be compared to most developers apples to apples. Why? > NASA and the Lockheed Martin group agree in the most minute detail about everything the new code is supposed to do — and they commit that understanding to paper, with the kind of spec…

I'm largely self-taught in programming, so it wasn't until much later in my career that I really groked the value of foundational Computer Science. One day, I stumbled across this book:

http://elementsofprogramming.com

... and it was maybe the first time I understood that you very much can explicitly define the constraints, inputs, outputs, etc, of a program. For something like a NASA shuttle, it makes absolute sense that they would have an insanely granular definition of the domain / limits under which their code must operate.

Most of us deal in our day-to-day on top of a mountain of abstraction. But there are absolutely scenarios in which a formal, complete spec, is a life-or-death requirement.

Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)

#16

Post by jrd259 »

It would be very instructive to compare this with the SpaceX development process. I think the AMA for them has still not been completed, and know of no other source of insight into their process. (To be clear, I also agree with the other comments. With few exceptions (flight, autonomous vehicles, medical, power) lives do not depend on our software, so this is likely not the right process for most of us.)

Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)

#17

Post by bluGill »

NanoCoaster wrote: post #9
amandavinci wrote: post #5

We don't build software like a bridge; we grow it like a garden. The industrial revolution was about building machines that dominate its environment. The software revolution is about writing code to resonate with its environment. The software grows in harmony with its user and business needs. Except, of course, for special cases such as this. "The whole approach to developing software is intentionally designed not to…

> A programmer could have chosen to be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc. but they choose to code because it is one of the way they can "express" themselves. Not necessarily. I chose to code because I'm good at it and because I'm not good enough at anything else to do it as a job. Well, at least not in the same salary range. I agree with your point otherwise but I'm not sure that people solely choose to become software…

If you put as much effort into law as you have into software you would be a good lawyer and a terrible developer. It is a choice. Today your effort learning software pays better (with exceptions both ways) then law, but historically law has been good. I decline to speculate on if law will earn better than software in the future.

You can say the same for medicine, any other engineering field, farming, ditch digging, or any other job. Regardless of which you choose some love it and some it is just a job.

Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)

#18

Post by slavoingilizov »

Such a sad writeup.

Having a journalist glorify some 10x gurus in a specific team and diss every other software developer in the world is not going to solve the problem at all.

It's a shame though - because the topic is a really important and interesting one, which deserves discussion. But not this type of dramatisation.

The most important sentence only comes at the end (and is the reason you can't trust the solutions proposed):

> And money is not the critical constraint: the groups $35 million per year budget is a trivial slice of the NASA pie, but on a dollars-per-line basis, it makes the group among the nation’s most expensive software organizations.

You work with the constraints you have. Eliminating the constraint doesn't solve the problem - it redefines it.

Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)

#19

Post by binxbolling »

sizzzzlerz wrote: post #13

I certainly do not begrudge the efforts that go into building the shuttle software the process they must follow to ensure their code remains at such a high level of quality. When you have essentially an unlimited budget you can achieve a lot with competent managers, staff, and a process that is well-defined and understood and, most importantly, enforced. I don't know the details here but I'd be willing to bet that th…

It's in the article: $35M per year budget ($57M in 2020 dollars).
Post reply on HN