|
It provides certification and guarantees a certain level of familiarity with the subject. Accountability is not something that should be in hands of someone else outside of the law*.
The rest reads like a workers' union.
--edit
*) the software was there to cover up an existing problem. So who is responsible?
Hundreds Of 737 Max Pilots Sue Boeing Over 'Unprecedented Cover-Up" | Zero Hedge[^]
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
modified 24-Jun-19 13:20pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you actually feel that trade unions are bad?
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
Nooo, quite the opposite!
Without them we'd have a 15-hour workday.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Certifications are a scam that only benefits the people that are charging money for them. Anyone can get one. Like a college diploma.
Your cited example of the 737 Max problem was NOT the fault of the programmers. They wrote the code to the specs, and Boeing knew IN ADVANCE that there might be a problem with their specs. They even had a workaround for pilots to perform in the event a problem cropped up.
Boeing management's fault, not the coders.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: Certifications are a scam that only benefits the people that are charging money for them. Anyone can get one. Like a college diploma.
You can get your Masters degree 
#realJSOP wrote: Your cited example of the 737 Max problem was NOT the fault of the programmers. They wrote the code to the specs, and Boeing knew IN ADVANCE that there might be a problem with their specs. They even had a workaround for pilots to perform in the event a problem cropped up.
Boeing management's fault, not the coders.
Read the text I linked. It's a patch to work around a hardware-problem. Pretty sure management did a risc/reward analysis 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How it looks vs how it is. What's next, how people "believe" the software was?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that programmers are absolved.
From a link by another (How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer - IEEE Spectrum[^]
START QUOTE
It is astounding that no one who wrote the MCAS software for the 737 Max seems even to have raised the possibility of using multiple inputs, including the opposite angle-of-attack sensor, in the computer’s determination of an impending stall. As a lifetime member of the software development fraternity, I don’t know what toxic combination of inexperience, hubris, or lack of cultural understanding led to this mistake.
But I do know that it’s indicative of a much deeper problem. The people who wrote the code for the original MCAS system were obviously terribly far out of their league and did not know it. How can they implement a software fix, much less give us any comfort that the rest of the flight management software is reliable?
END QUOTE
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
0) Most corporate coders are given a task to perform, and that is all they are to do, Many times, they have no contextual basis for the code they write beyond expected paramaters, and expected results. USAA (a big insurance company here in the US) is like this. Because they lack context, they couldn't possibly identify a potential issue.
1) Even if they were more aware, they could have said something to their immediate superior (or logged it in their bug tracking software), but the idea/observation was quashed/ignored somewhere along the management food chain.
2) Problems may have been cited, but management decided not to act due to costs. It's not a big leap to assume that management would scrub evidence that indicates this was the case, so saying it doesn't show up in the bug tracking/source controls logs doesn't mean squat.
3) Ultimately, the system engineer should have been included in the acceptance testing phase, and probably be the one to identify the problem - NOT the coders.
4) Even if the coders were "out of their league", how would the coders test something they don't fully understand?
5) What do you want to bet that it was the *engineers* that wrote this code? I woudln't EVER refer to an engineer as a "programmer". They simply aren't.
The "hubris" lies with the engineers, not the programmers. If I was a programmer that had worked on that system, and they were trying to claim I was the reason for the flaw, and further, that I knew the actual truth, I'd be pretty vocal about placing the blame where it rightly belongs.
Boeing is looking for scapegoats, and programmers are low man on the totem pole. If they thought they could get away with blaming the janitors, they certainly would try.
In the end, the guy in charge of Boeing is ultimately responsible.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
If we are to change the scenario you rightly describe, we cannot justr wait until it happens. We must make it happen.
With a strong organization, I think we can define the process by which software is developed. I'm not sure how (my job here is not to direct but rather to propose) but once organized the issues can be addressed.
Your points are a sad commentary on today's state of programming. They're more reason to organize.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
Organizing programmers is NOT going to fix faulty management.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. Faulty management should be addressed by the organization. Management training should be provided. And sanctions if companies do not cooperate. Remember Congressionally Charted?
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. There is a vast difference between "coders", "programmers" and "analyst programmers".
Coders write code to fulfill the complete specification that are given. Sometimes they given the basic code to enter.
Programmers have the ability to flesh out less well defined specification by getting answers to the undefined parts of the specification.
Analyst programmers read and question the specification they have been to ensure that the specification meet, and will resolve, the problem for which the specification was written.
In addition, consideration has be given to the working environment and management of the project. I have worked in organisations in which management not only dictated the specifications for the features or issues, they also dictated the time estimates to complete the feature or resolve the issue. This environment makes it very difficult to raise questions or even make changes to obvious issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy, thanks for that link to the 737 Max story: a very well written, compelling, piece !
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
Yw 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not push back a little and outlaw bad languages that allow software to be easily, yet poorly constructed?
Go after the root issue -- the devs who create bad languages and require them to provide languages in which the dev cannot create bad code.
That's a smaller set to deal with and more likely to happen.
In the good future, JavaScript will be illegal. 
All Python Purveyors will be Imprisoned!
|
|
|
|
|
I mentioned Microsoft. The problem that I have with MS is the continuous update of the C# language. When I was a member of the ANS X3J9 technical committee (Pascal) we were limited to a language update every five years.
Most developers are not in a position to dictate language standards. Nor are they usually listened to by large companies.
The problem is really systemic to the programming community - except we don't have a programming community!
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
gggustafson wrote: . When I was a member of the ANS X3J9 technical committee (Pascal) we were limited to a language update every five years.
And back then that worked because there wasn't as often a change in the industry. Now, this industry moves much faster and needs updates much more often.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
During my 50+ year career, I have been employed by 16 companies, each for varying periods of time. At the end of it all, guess how much of a retirement fund that I have - $0. Guess how much insurance I have - $0. Basically, I have no benefits that accrued over the 50+ years. Nothing was done illegally. In large part this situation was caused as a result of my decisions. But, when you're 34, you seldom have the wisdom that you have when you are 60. The other side of the problem was that in 2 cases, my salary was significantly higher with recent to that of recent graduates. I believe that a professional organization would have protected me against myself.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
gggustafson wrote: this situation was caused as a result of my decisions.
absolutely.
If you are an American, and paid your taxes, you have Social Security benefits, which can begin as early as 62 years of age.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
If you made software-engineer wages and didn't put anything away for retirement, that is so totally your fault. A union with a mandatory-participation retirement plan to "protect you from yourself" is the kind of union that union-haters particularly dislike. It's an organization with enough money to make it ripe for abuse and racketeering. This is the wrong model IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
When I started programming for a major software services company in 1973, I was paid $12K per year. I received 10% pay raises every 6 months. Because I was cheap and good, my job was secure. In 1998, I was earning $103K per year. But when I left my then-current employer I also left all of my benefits: six weeks vacation, a retirement account, health benefits for my partner and myself, and most importantly a job. The reason for my departure was the need to reallocate discretionary funds to Bosnia training (I was a contractor for the US Army at the National Training Center). When I landed in a new job, I was paid $25K per year (my choice to get a job). By the time I finally left commercial programming, I was earning about $50K per year.
Because of my life style, I didn't need savings: no kids, no college, no weddings, etc. I thought my whole salary was discretionary (with the exception of mortgages, automobile loan, etc.). I am not complaining about my foolishness. I have Social Security, Veterans benefits, an annuity, and a trust fund (the latter two established by my family who recognized my financial planning shortcomings). In a quick search, I turned up an Experian survey that suggests that I was not alone in the manner in which I spent money.
The take-away: a professional organization for programmers may well have solved my financial planning problem. Not necessarily, but possibly.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
Only a fool counts on others to protect them against their own foolishness. If a professional society solved your problem, it would be by accident, not by design. It's not a good reason to found a professional society.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe you post is approaching incivility. I have so marked it.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. When it comes to language standardization I think five years is an adequate update cycle.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
