Comment Re:Software inevitably fails all the time (Score 1) 427
he bridge analogy is plain daft. An engineer gets out a standard bridge, then alters it so that it is appropriate for the
situation, as he was taught. The result? A lot of similar bridges, which on the whole, don't fail.
Snort. Something like 50% of suspension bridges built in the 19th century collapsed with 10 years of construction. Look up Petroski if you want the exact numbers.
Engineering is nearly always carried out in the dark: we really didn't have good models for suspension bridge mechanics until the 1960's but it didn't stop Roebling from building the Brooklyn Bridge in the 1880's. Airplanes were built before aerodynamics - largely because without airplanes, you can't build aerodynamic theory. Engineering is always ahead of the theory, whether it be software, hardware, mechanical or chemical.
situation, as he was taught. The result? A lot of similar bridges, which on the whole, don't fail.
Snort. Something like 50% of suspension bridges built in the 19th century collapsed with 10 years of construction. Look up Petroski if you want the exact numbers.
Engineering is nearly always carried out in the dark: we really didn't have good models for suspension bridge mechanics until the 1960's but it didn't stop Roebling from building the Brooklyn Bridge in the 1880's. Airplanes were built before aerodynamics - largely because without airplanes, you can't build aerodynamic theory. Engineering is always ahead of the theory, whether it be software, hardware, mechanical or chemical.
