Slashdot Mirror
Bad Software Runs the World
whitroth tips a story at The Atlantic by James Kwak, who bemoans the poor quality of software underpinning so many important industries. He points out that while user-facing software is often well-polished, the code running supply chains, production lines, and financial markets is rarely so refined. From the article:
"The underlying problem here is that most software is not very good. Writing good software is hard. There are thousands of opportunities to make mistakes. More importantly, it's difficult if not impossible to anticipate all the situations that a software program will be faced with, especially when — as was the case for both UBS and Knight — it is interacting with other software programs that are not under your control. It's difficult to test software properly if you don't know all the use cases that it's going to have to support. There are solutions to these problems, but they are neither easy nor cheap. You need to start with very good, very motivated developers. You need to have development processes that are oriented toward quality, not some arbitrary measure of output."
50% of all software is of below-average quality.
That is because corporate infrastructure software does not generate revenue. Why spend money that does not directly impact the bottom line?
Maybe when you get people who actually understand the underlying business rather than a MBA graduate, that will change.
Good, Fast, Cheap...Pick Two.
There aren't enough 'good' coders in the world to implement all the software that needs to be written, let along 'very good' ones. Not to mention good architects, designers, requirements analysts, etc, etc, etc. And even if there were, software that needs to work together isn't always designed to do so. Hacks, cludges, and jerry rigged solutions are what hold the tech world together, no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.
That is because corporate infrastructure software does not obviously generate revenue, and losses of opportunity are invisible.
Fixed it for you.
Basically just supporting the last half of what you said.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
and this article is absolutely correct. Forthe most part, we do regression testing, but a lot of code (a whole lot) is never unit tested, its not written to be used it tested, and there are configuration holes all over the place. Each time there is a Jerome Kerviel or Nick Leeson, a generation of auditors will come through and find systems faults, and put in reasonably effective controls, but that is not the same as programmatic correctness. Programmatic correctness often has to be baked into the code from the start (same with effective unit testing), and by and large, this is not an investment banks highest priority (as an earlier poster wrote, code that is not directly involved in revenue generation does not get funded).
It isn't cost effective to build good software... for a few users. I develop some internal systems. They are very complex and each of them have 40 users at most. The ROI of Apple polishing every tiny bit of a software is great. If each of their 100000 users spend one second less, it is a ROI of more than one day. Human beings are very intelligent. They can learn to play a musical instrument, drive a car, operate a machine and to use shitty software.
What is this number compared against? A bugless program may still be a piece of shit.
Indeed. I've been parachuted in to several companies with major software issues.
Three had avoided even starting a migration from hardware and databases that hadn't been supported in a decade or more.
Another placehad no concept of file locking or threading, or QA, and was using 8 different programming languages on just one project.
Two companies that handled 80,000 to 300,000 transactions a day did not have any way of simulating input or comparing the input to output.
One company that depended on several million TCP/IP connections a day had no idea that TCP/IP data might not all arrive in one packet.
Another place whose business was dependent on several custom fonts would not believe the veracity of both the Postscript and TrueType font verifiers when they said "your font has 488 serious errors".
About 3/4 of the places had not a clue what SQL injection was and how they were vulnerable.
The quality of the stuff out there is just horrible.
AC hits it on the head. This is nothing but the age-old search for the perfect metric. Development processes ARE oriented towards quality - for arbitrary values of "quality". The problem is that quality software is like porn: you know it when you're looking at it, but you have no idea how it is exactly defined. Is it a lack of bugs? Sure, but that's definitely not the only aspect. Is it maintainability? Maybe - if the software needs to be around for the next 30 years. Is it readability? Dunno - machine code is pretty unreadable, yet there's quality machine code out there. Is it how long it took to develop, how flexible it is, how user friendly, how much power features are in it? Maybe, maybe, maybe.
Pick a metric - a boatload of metrics - and I will find you a large number of cases where the metric fails. Are we doomed? Kinda. Just like there's no silver bullet that solves all your development processes, there's no silver bullet when it comes to measuring the output of the process.
In the end, what people care about is "does it do what we need it to do?", and that's all that anyone is going to remember. Unless, of course, it's review time, and then the only thing that matters is "the metric".
Yep, we're doomed.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Bean counter and management do. They don't care how much the staff struggles with lousy software (e.g. Oracle server on Linux). They care about saving a few bucks, getting their bonuses, reorganizing to hide the bodies and moving on to the next job. Hence, there will always be a market for crappy software. Capitalism fails at the interface level. If the engineers and low level end users made the purchasing decisions, you can bet quality would improve in a hurry.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
You mentioned utilities, so I've got to jump in with an anecdote.
Several years ago, I was brought in by our local electrical utility to develop a configuration control system for engineering documentation. Specifically, substation engineering documentation. The problem was presented to me as one of engineers getting behind schedule working on as-built drawings. And working from the wrong drawing revisions. So, before accepting the project, I asked to speak to some of the other stakeholders in the design and build process. Specifically, the construction crews. The first sign of trouble: Engineering management looked at me kind of funny. It seems that engineering and construction didn't get along too well. Nevertheless, as an outsider, I figured I had an advantage.
After speaking to a few workers, I had a better picture. It seems that the relationship between these two groups had been poisoned for many years by (as far as I could tell) one individual in engineering management. The crews considered him to be a raging a**hole and wouldn't work with him (he had retired years before, but people still carried a grudge). As a result, the crews pretty much built things the way they wanted instead of per the drawings. Specifically, they built new stations the way they built the last one. As a result, the smarter engineers as-built the older drawings. Those being the ones the crews were working to.
Management wanted me to come in and build a system to 'lock down' released drawings and restrict the work flow. Without understanding the root causes of their problem and how people were working to accommodate process and personnel problems. I walked away from that job offer quickly.
I have a few stories (oddly about defense contractors) where software was built intentionally to be lousy. If the users' management had to employ a staff of a few hundred people to repeatedly sanitize database entries (rather than built error checking into the entry system) it meant they were a third or fourth level manager (with the commensurate salary) instead of first level with a couple of DB admins under them.
Good software is easy to write. Bad management or personnel problems are difficult to fix. An associate one told me that he could fix all of the problems in a $250 million dollar failing s/w project with one clip in a .45.
Have gnu, will travel.
I always assumed that Taco Bell's product was consumed as a laxative, of which they produce a highly effective product.
Bingo.
Single-payer, for instance, would be a bigger boon to entrepreneurship, job mobility, and (actual) small businesses than any tax cut proposal the right (or left, for that matter) has put forth. Even better, if it's done right (so, at least as well as it is in the very worst system of that sort in the industrialized world, since they all spend less than we do) it'd cut costs for everyone, including big businesses.
Too bad that would be evil socialism, I guess.
Remember: Broken gets fixed. Shoddy lasts forever.
I'm not trolling, it's a reality check.
Most big software projects I've seen fail hard, like millions and 10's of wasted dollars hard. By comparison you just dont see that very often in big electrical/mechanical/civil projects, which can be equally complex (eg refineries, cruise liners etc).
There are software developers with all sorts of fancy titles - architects, analysts, engineers - and yet they cant get the code right. Usually the root cause is inadequete requirements spec and failure to manage the customers expectations but that's no excuse, there are usually numerous poeple employed in the project process specifically to get those parts right.
Software engineering is still playing catch up, in the sense that most developers and development companies I've seen still dont follow a formal enough process for it really to be called engineering. Usually it's a bunch of computer science graduates having a wild stab at it, and the good ones are closer to artisans than engineers.
Until the entire software industry gets off it's high horse and admits this to itself - and more importantly admits this to the customers, we are going to continue to be dissapointed with the quality.