31–40 of 136 posts
Time to spread some liberty and freedom in the Netherlands.
Also I've been wondering why our Prime Minister has been so enthusiastically following US foreign policy lately. Turns out he's eyeing the NATO boss seat, and the US has the most important vote.
Zeiss -> ASML -> TSMC -> Nvidia Seems crazy that there are no alternatives for these four companies in the high end AI semiconductor supply chain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stability and long product lifecycles are incredibly important to them. They're pretty much the opposite of move fast and break things or deploy early/deploy often.
Try searching how much money is lost by clients if the fab is down. You have to be very careful with software for fabs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol, thank you for link. I was expecting the opposite from this company, but for some reason, after reading this, I'm not surprised at all.
They are physicists and hardware folks, right? I would expect messy code written by convoluted processes for nightmare applications, that somehow works.
Relevant HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18463181 Apparently their software development processes are terrible.
Tbc, based on the comment that looks to be driven almost completely by the fact that they are making a tiny number of incredibly expensive bespoke machines, so they can't just keep extra machines lying around to do unit tests with (both because each machine is expensive, and because the results wouldn't necessarily generalize to other machines). So it sounds like a constraint of the field, not bad choices.
Relevant HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18463181 Apparently their software development processes are terrible.
Tbc, based on the comment that looks to be driven almost completely by the fact that they are making a tiny number of incredibly expensive bespoke machines, so they can't just keep extra machines lying around to do unit tests with (both because each machine is expensive, and because the results wouldn't necessarily generalize to other machines). So it sounds like a constraint of the field, not bad choices.
I used to work in automotive and all unit tests didn't require the finished car, just the SW.
Nasa doesn't hava another Voyager probe in their lab floating around in zero gravity to run unit tests on before sending the SW patches, they use simulators.
For calibration you do need the final production HW, but unit tests shouldn't, so maybe there's a confusion here about the type of tests ran.
Time to spread some liberty and freedom in the Netherlands.
The US is not far from doing that. See the Hague Invasion Act. Also I've been wondering why our Prime Minister has been so enthusiastically following US foreign policy lately. Turns out he's eyeing the NATO boss seat, and the US has the most important vote.
Relevant HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18463181 Apparently their software development processes are terrible.
I've seen files with 13k lines of if/else/switch, how do you test that shit .-.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tbc, based on the comment that looks to be driven almost completely by the fact that they are making a tiny number of incredibly expensive bespoke machines, so they can't just keep extra machines lying around to do unit tests with (both because each machine is expensive, and because the results wouldn't necessarily generalize to other machines). So it sounds like a constraint of the field, not bad choices.
Why do you need the actual production machine for unit tests? Why can't you build a SW simulator for them and run unit tests on them? I used to work in automotive and all unit tests didn't require the finished car, just the SW. Nasa doesn't hava another Voyager probe in their lab floating around in zero gravity to run unit tests on before sending the SW patches, they use simulators. For calibration you do need the fi…