This article doesn't make any sense. It already fails at the premise. Airplanes and elevators have nothing in common with code written by normal software companies.
They optimize for a compromise between short-term gain and long-term gain. In essence, a startup can mathematically proof its software and go bankrupt before they even reach a prototype stage. Or they can shell out utter crap quickly, get some early feedback, funding and beta testers and slowly figure out what to improve first for the biggest bang.
Same goes for giants, like Google. They technically have the resources to prove SOME projects and they DO. For instance, Amazon proves their hardware virtualization software and other core pieces, where bugs would undermine the safety of the entire cloud.
I am getting a bit sick of "Why is software engineering so bad compared to XYZ". All the people asking are either not in this field or are junior engineers who just don't yet understand why things are the way they are and why writing bug-free, mathematically proven software is infeasible, unnecessary, impractical, undesired, etc.
Consider another analogy. When building a house, how expensive is it to decide that you actually want to have a ceiling with 5 meters high in the second floor, because the buyer of that floor wants higher ceilings? Simple: Tear down the building and start over...
In software? Usually it comes down to adding an IF-statement or some such. Software follows completely different economic principles and serves completely different needs.
There is at least one dimension though where this problem currently shines through: Self-Driving Cars.
I think auto-pilots in self-driving cars SHOULD follow the same rigor as airplane auto-pilots and they are most certainly not doing that, which will and already has resulted in lost lives.
"They optimize for a compromise between short-term gain and long-term gain"
Hey! Author here. This is the exact point that I make in my essay. I don't compare it to any other fields, and certainly don't mention airplanes or elevators. I explain how this compromise is deliberately reached for people who aren't familiar with the dynamics of software projects. I recommend that you read the post! It sounds like we agree on a lot.
They optimize for a compromise between short-term gain and long-term gain. In essence, a startup can mathematically proof its software and go bankrupt before they even reach a prototype stage. Or they can shell out utter crap quickly, get some early feedback, funding and beta testers and slowly figure out what to improve first for the biggest bang.
Same goes for giants, like Google. They technically have the resources to prove SOME projects and they DO. For instance, Amazon proves their hardware virtualization software and other core pieces, where bugs would undermine the safety of the entire cloud.
I am getting a bit sick of "Why is software engineering so bad compared to XYZ". All the people asking are either not in this field or are junior engineers who just don't yet understand why things are the way they are and why writing bug-free, mathematically proven software is infeasible, unnecessary, impractical, undesired, etc.
Consider another analogy. When building a house, how expensive is it to decide that you actually want to have a ceiling with 5 meters high in the second floor, because the buyer of that floor wants higher ceilings? Simple: Tear down the building and start over...
In software? Usually it comes down to adding an IF-statement or some such. Software follows completely different economic principles and serves completely different needs.
There is at least one dimension though where this problem currently shines through: Self-Driving Cars.
I think auto-pilots in self-driving cars SHOULD follow the same rigor as airplane auto-pilots and they are most certainly not doing that, which will and already has resulted in lost lives.