Boeing employee: I would not put my family on a Max plane

Re:Boeing employee: I would not put my family on a Max plane by Wowfunhappy on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @03:04PM (#20217041)

I realize I'm over-defining a silly term, but I'd consider that a "hack", not a dirty hack.

You understood exactly what was going on and were wholly confident it would be reliable. And more to the point, you wouldn't have counted it as a mark against the product's reliability.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Boeing employee: I would not put my family on a Max plane by beatgammit on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @03:16PM (#20217204)

That really depends on the hack. Maybe it's fragile because it is building based on a bug, and if the library changes, the code will have to be updated. Or perhaps it's there based on bad behavior of a chip and a hardware update could change the nature of the issue (say, it relies on a particular instruction that's generated by the particular compiler in use to happen just before the code in question).

A hack could be completely reliable (for the same hardware, library versions, and compiler), but still be a "dirty hack". And whether a hack is "dirty" is very subjective and, IMO, based more on how obvious the fix is (e.g. radians -> degrees -> function -> back to radians because the library documentation is wrong is less bad than a non-obvious hack like multiplying by 1 or something to avoid a compiler codegen bug because of a hardware bug).

I think this horse has been thoroughly beaten, so I'll leave it here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Boeing employee: I would not put my family on a Max plane by rohit33 on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @03:43PM (#20217537)

While a well documented hack is OK, system, by design, shouldn't need or be built around hacks.MAX nose dive issue was a hack to counter the dive which proved fatal.

[ Parent | on HN ]