I do not appreciate when authors use the royal "we" to speak for all software engineers when admitting to low quality-control standards.
I suspect that it is an attempt to broach an uncomfortable topic through vulnerable self-disclosure, but we need to be serious about admitting when there is a problem somewhere.
"Bugs" are not any more cute or fuzzy or entertaining or harmless than the engine "gremlins" that haunted the aviation industry back in the day.
I don't know how many accidents had to happen before the airplane people got serious, but software people are overdue for a similar reckoning.
It’s great to yearn for bug free software, but that necessarily brings an insane amount of red tape to get anything done. Like 5 years worth of review to start building your code with the next version of your compiler. Or six months to ship a hundred lines of code.
I'd rather have bugs. I’d happily quit having anything to do with software than suffer months of doing nothing in the name of security.
xtajv · · focus · HN ↗
I suspect that it is an attempt to broach an uncomfortable topic through vulnerable self-disclosure, but we need to be serious about admitting when there is a problem somewhere.
"Bugs" are not any more cute or fuzzy or entertaining or harmless than the engine "gremlins" that haunted the aviation industry back in the day.
I don't know how many accidents had to happen before the airplane people got serious, but software people are overdue for a similar reckoning.
fooker · · focus · HN ↗
It’s great to yearn for bug free software, but that necessarily brings an insane amount of red tape to get anything done. Like 5 years worth of review to start building your code with the next version of your compiler. Or six months to ship a hundred lines of code.
I'd rather have bugs. I’d happily quit having anything to do with software than suffer months of doing nothing in the name of security.