21–30 of 38 posts
OK, everyone here who codes in ADA, raise your hand. Atlas?
What's used in place of Ada nowadays?
OK, everyone here who codes in ADA, raise your hand. Atlas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea about their overall code quality but there was a famous F-22 bug found a few years ago where it lost all navigation systems when crossing the international date line. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-squadron-shot-down-b...
Date/Time code is notorious. It always seems simpler than it actually is. There are always corner cases you forgot about. None of it is rocket science. Instead, it's the stupid arbitrariness of it that gets you. (Commodity trading is often the same.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'll bet that the F22 software is not actually that much more complicated than that controlling a modern car, yet Ford or whoever can spread the cost over a million units. I'll bet it is. A car is significantly simpler than a fighter plane (at all levels of resolution), even when you discount weapons and detection systems. Which you can't discount when you're building software for a plane. Furthermore, the risks in…
We've had self-landing planes and autopilots for a long time. Self-driving cars are still a long way off. So I would say that don't underestimate what software you need in a car. And even if the F22 is 10x as complex, Ford still has 100,000 cars to spread the cost across.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'll bet that the F22 software is not actually that much more complicated than that controlling a modern car, yet Ford or whoever can spread the cost over a million units. I'll bet it is. A car is significantly simpler than a fighter plane (at all levels of resolution), even when you discount weapons and detection systems. Which you can't discount when you're building software for a plane. Furthermore, the risks in…
We've had self-landing planes and autopilots for a long time. Self-driving cars are still a long way off. So I would say that don't underestimate what software you need in a car. And even if the F22 is 10x as complex, Ford still has 100,000 cars to spread the cost across.
So, safely automating cars is a harder problem, but not because the car itself is a more complex vehicle.
OK, everyone here who codes in ADA, raise your hand. Atlas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article actually nails the real reason: the USAF bought far fewer F22s than it originally planned, so things like this that apply equally to 1 or 1000 have to have their cost spread over far fewer individual units. I'll bet that the F22 software is not actually that much more complicated than that controlling a modern car, yet Ford or whoever can spread the cost over a million units.
> I'll bet that the F22 software is not actually that much more complicated than that controlling a modern car, yet Ford or whoever can spread the cost over a million units. I'll bet it is. A car is significantly simpler than a fighter plane (at all levels of resolution), even when you discount weapons and detection systems. Which you can't discount when you're building software for a plane. Furthermore, the risks in…
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_throttle_control 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-by-wire
OK, everyone here who codes in ADA, raise your hand. Atlas?
I've played with it, it's a nice language. Don't see why people hate on it, it's not especially verbose, and the static types are actually helpful (like, you can cleanly loop over the extent of an enumerated type, for example) as well as more than usually protective (like, you can type define "inches" and "centimeters" as kinds of integer, and it won't let you mix them by accident).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've had self-landing planes and autopilots for a long time. Self-driving cars are still a long way off. So I would say that don't underestimate what software you need in a car. And even if the F22 is 10x as complex, Ford still has 100,000 cars to spread the cost across.
That's the result of a combination of two things: aircraft don't often have one of the major problems that cars have (dense traffic and other obstacles), and that the problem of dissimilar surfaces was solved, for aircraft, by making the surfaces more similar. Cars instead have to be able to negotiate a variety of terrain. So, safely automating cars is a harder problem, but not because the car itself is a more comple…