The 737 example is actually quite fitting. Sure, a long time pilot will perceive the interface as invisible.
But if you contrast it with the complexity of the same functions on other aircraft, you start to see how complicated it really is. The F-22 for example handles a lot of faults (like engine fires) automatically.
There is a Bambu p1s on its way to me. I will exclusively print ASA and my impression was that the p1s has a good track record with ASA.
My prints will be mounted in glider cockpits and require the UV resistance.
Money is a bit tight, so I decided against prusa as my first printer.
I am curious if anyone has good experiences with alternatives for the p1s with regards to ASA printing?
Since we can't really formally prove most code, I think property based testing such as with hypothesis[1] would make sense.
I have not used it yet, but am about to for stuff that really needs to work.
> All of the things you mentioned are designed and tested incrementally.
In a different way that what is proposed in this thread.
We don't build a small bridge and grow it. We build small bridges, develop a theory for building bridges and use that to design the big bridge.
I don't know of any theory of computing that would help us design a "big" program at once.
Not saying you're wrong, but I wonder what is the differentiating factor for software? We can build huge things like airliners, massive bridges and buildings without starting small.
Incremental makes less sense to me when you want to go to mars. Would you propose to write the software for such a mission in an incremental fashion too?
Yet for software systems it is sometimes proposed as the best way.
Gliders utilize Laminar profiles, while airliners use turbulent profiles.
The Laminar profiles perform better, but only when uncontaminated (no bugs or rain). Contaminated turbulent profiles perform better than contaminated Laminar profiles.
Since regulations state that you should carry fuel for the worst case scenario, it does not yet make sense to design airliners with Laminar profiles.
Naturally, manufacturers are looking for ways around this.
Weight affects speed with minimum sink. That affects the diameter of the circle you fly. Since thermals have more lift towards the center (assuming perfectly circular thermals), you are not able to circle in the strongest lift. So you climb more slowly.
You can glide faster with the same L/D, so that might be worth it if you try to optimize for speed.
Have two people sit next to each other, each with a blank piece of paper and a pen.
Have them both simultaneously write down the numbers from 1 to 1: one time in decimal, one time in roman numbers and one time as letters of the alphabet (a=1, b=2...)
One person goes about it system by system (first decimal, then Roman... ). The other goes about it number by number (1,I,A,2,II,B...)
One instance that crosses my mind often is the airbus a320 incident at Hamburg in 2008. Everything was done right there, but the requirements were wrong.
Despite all the procedures and tests, the software still managed to endanger the lives of the passengers.
My understanding of Taoism is that it's all about moderation, balance.
There is probably a lot of long-term value in your process. Given my understanding, I would expect you to look at your employer holistically too, and realize that short term results are also valuable in their own way.
Like with yin-yang, short-term results hold within them the long term results: the money earnt enables the company to exist in the long term. Lessons learnt from delivering value can spark insight for architecture in the future.
Vice versa, the long term enables the short term. A codebase with little technical debt allows you to quickly implement changes in the short term.
But if you contrast it with the complexity of the same functions on other aircraft, you start to see how complicated it really is. The F-22 for example handles a lot of faults (like engine fires) automatically.