I read the opening paragraph and thought 'ah well, another boring didactic angry developer rant.' Just as I was about to close the tab, my eye caught the start of the second paragraph:
This reminds me of my days in the Space Shuttle program.
Which, to put it mildly, is something of a credibility boost. So I finished the article.
"Which, to put it mildly, is something of a credibility boost. So I finished the article."
Yes, but then when he repeated the line with "this reminds me of my days with perl", suddenly I started hearing the entire post in grandpa simpsons voice...
an attention-getting phrase, but not the best one in the post as far as i am concerned--i'm going through our g/h issues just now and adding comments like "poeple let's fix this toxic hellstew!"
Don't see why I'm getting downvoted here, honestly. Even NASA management has admitted that the Shuttle program fell well short of the planned goals, and left us with much worse capabilities than if we had followed the "reusable thingy with wings" pipedream.
None of the reliability or capability issues with the Space Shuttle were software-related, as far as I know, so I'm not sure how your objection is relevant. The Shuttle is generally regarded as having one of the most complex and quality-focused software design efforts in history.
You are probably correct that the Shuttle software was highly reliable and highly complex. But the real failure of the Shuttle was the cost. I think the Shuttle was originally sold to Congress as being able to do 40 missions a year. We only ever did 4 or 5 a year at most. The cost was way to high. And while the software worked flawlessly, the process to create it cost too much.
Also the amount of change to the software was relatively low because of the slow bureaucratic process. So you have a high cost for not much change. The computers used in the Shuttle were extremely old towards the end, and because of Moore's law, really laughable in terms of processing powering. Towards the end NASA was using EBay to buy old hardware parts for the Shuttle program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/12/us/for-parts-nasa-boldly-g...
NASA with the Shuttle program didn't fight cost and complexity hard enough. Hence you have large groups of engineers to do tasks that can now be handled by better software. Our "Data Group" should have been removed long before the whole program shutdown but half of our department refused to change and use the new simulator.
I think Elon Musk gets this with Space X and I believe Space X vehicles already operate at lower costs. Now he just has to prove his reliability and keep becoming more efficient.
To be fair, going to the moon was once a pipe dream too. As was flying around the world.
I dont think following this pipedream was the wrong move to make. While it could have had better execution and resulted in aerospace setbacks overall I think the idea was a good one, perhaps just far too far ahead of its time.
One day, I hope we will have a reliable reusable thingy with wings. It just has to beat the cost of non reusable tube with giant flames.
This reminds me of my days in the Space Shuttle program.
Which, to put it mildly, is something of a credibility boost. So I finished the article.