Henry:
WRT the Shuttle flight code only—which was Class 1—what demonstrably worked
was to use two teams of programmers, one to write and the other to break
the code. They switched roles periodically to keep fresh and they were
forbidden to work more than eight hours per day.
After a dozen or so flights the flight code dropped to 2-3 detected errors
per load, by the end of the program zero detected errors was common.
However, this model applies only to repeat software builds; other but
similar methods are used for Class 1 single build software, for nuclear
projects, for example.
Bill
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 07:12, Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 6/1/2019 12:07 AM, Uwe Klein wrote:
Am 01.06.2019 um 01:44 schrieb rebel without a job:Put it as "pay more to [the right] fewer programmers so you can have
or you can pay more programmers so you can have tighter, more efficient
code.
That is an interesting theory.
( Killed on a regular basis by reality.)
i.e. when ever the internals of commercial large scale software
gets public exposure it comes out as an even tighter wick of spaghetti
in an opaque "proprietary<foot stamp>" shell.
tighter more efficient code" and it makes a bit more sense.
Only who is reliably competent to select then manage the right fewer
programmers?
Henry
