This is false. Software is not write-only. Software requires maintenance. Code need to be readable. It's primary audience is humans.
-
-
Replying to @hackuador @ncoghlan_dev
furthermore, how can we have any confidence that the computer is doing what we want if we cannot reason about the program?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hackuador
We run it and see if it gives the answer and/or behaviour we want with the data we gave it. Same way people use spreadsheets.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ncoghlan_dev
Honest question: how do you know if the answer/behaviour observed is the answer/behaviour you want?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hackuador
When it's the same outcome as what you would have got doing it by hand, and when your spot checks look right.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ncoghlan_dev @hackuador
When we formalise those spot checks, we give them names like unit tests, acceptance tests, and test vectors :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ncoghlan_dev
I hope Boeing "spot-checked" all the possible combinations of inputs in their avionics system on the 737-800 I was flying on last night :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hackuador
Yep, Boeing knows how to write & test safety critical software: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety-critical_system#Software_engineering_for_safety-critical_systems …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ncoghlan_dev @hackuador
They also know that that level of assurance is around an order of magnitude more expensive than regular software development :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ncoghlan_dev
imagine if we could bring down the cost of formal verification (hint: we already have, and continue to do so)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I wonder if it is less than the trillion dollars that the Commonwealth Bank just spent on writing-broken-software.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.