Slashdot Mirror
Software Problem Linked to Osprey Crash
An Anonymous Coward sent in: "While not the only problem facing the ill-fated V-22 Osprey, a bug in the software controlling the pitch of the Osprey's rotors was listed as a contributing factor to the crash of a Marine Opsrey last December. It appears that a hydraulic leak initiated a sequence of events that included the pilot pressing a computer reset button. Rather than resetting the computer, the software changed the pitch of the rotors. Not so good... One more reason to fear too much technology. Has anybody ever seen a bug-free piece of software of any complexity greater than "Hello World"?"
I think the real problem is the change in the meaning of the word art in the past ~100 years. What most people think of these days when they hear the word "Art" is what is traditionally thought of as "Fine Arts". The traditional meaning of the word Art was more akin to "Technique". The phrase "State of the art" is refering to the most advanced techniques available. This is also why many universities still call their science departments "The college of arts and letters".
It used to be that professions that required a lot of talent and/or practice in order to master a technique, such as painting or dancing were considered the "fine arts". Then, in the latter part of the 19th century or early part of the 20th century some revolutionary fine artists decided to discard these old-school techniques. In the process they succeeded in changing the traditional notion of art from something that was more technique to something that was more creative.
Unfortunately, the traditional use of the word art wasn't obilterated in the process, so many early computer scientists (particularly Knuth) started to talk about "The Art of Computer Programming." What they meant wasn't that it's a creative process, but rather that it's a technique that must requires talent and must be practiced. Knuth preaches a lot of things about computer programming: programs should be simple and comprehendable, they should implement algorithms that are mathematically proven. It might not be anything as formal as methodologies like ISO-9000, but there's no implication of creativity like, "Let's see if we can fit 30 function points on one line because that would be so cool!"
Anyway, I think the only reasonable solution at this point is to abandon the antique word "art" and start talking about software development as a "technique" or other similar term.
My $.02,
-"Zow"
NASA's software development methodology is remarkable. Their work should be the standard by which every programmer measures himself against.
Unfortunately, most programmers are underinformed, and haven't the foggiest idea that there's are methodologies that will reduce their error rates, increase their productivity, and meet their customers' needs fully.
It's a shame that programming still has this bullshit mystique of "art" to it. "Art" is just a lame excuse for laziness: instead of approaching the problems methodically and scientifically, it's just ever-so-much easier to take a half-assed hack-and-patch approach.
I think I'd better stop here, before I really kick into a rant...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I can't believe nobody's posted about Knuth yet. Donald E. Knuth is famous for writing high-quality software, and even proving some of it (all of it?) correct. He offers rewards to people who find bugs in his code. The reward for TeX and METAFONT is described here: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/abcde.ht ml, under the heading "Rewards".
--Jim
I was going to cite the Shuttle as well. Here is a great article about it.
A group of technical leaders were at a seminar called "Making Reliable Software". The teacher at the seminar, in order to make the participants appreciate the problems of reliable software, posed this question: "How many of you would be willing to fly in an airplane that was controlled by software that your company created?" The technical leaders thought about it, and looked around at each other. Nobody raised their hands, except for one lone guy in the back. The teacher was suprised. "You, in the back," he asked. "Why are you so sure that it would be safe?" "Simple," replied the programmer. "Knowing how my guys code, the plane wouldn't even be able to pull away from the gate."
Back in early 90's I worked for a defense contractor that was involved with the testing of the V22's engines. I remember sitting in a meeting and looking at some of the mechanical drawings and saying to myself, "glad I'm not the test pilot". It is a very complicated design. Most military aircraft like the V22 have quadruple redundant electronic systems and even the engine ECUs will talk to each other and monitor the one that is currently in charge and if the others determine that the main ECU is malfunctioning the other three will vote to remove it. Very complicated algorithms. Also to maintain that both rotors have power with one engine failing a high speed drive shaft is used to transfer power from the good engine to the transmission on the side that lost power. The drive shaft has a very small diameter but would spin at something like 10,000 rpms. Low torque but high power. The designers are thinking about safety and I think this bird can work its just not being funded with the enthusiasm of the old cold-war projects.