News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Computer science is not software engineering by mikece on Saturday December 26, 2020 @11:07AM (#25544225)
I've seen this sentiment raised in several conference talks but the follow-on question of "how do we achieve this in software development?" is one where nobody really has a good answer. The story is that many civil engineers, while taking undergrad classes, had to look at, hold, and pass around a piece of the Tacoma Narrows bridge that had failed and collapsed. There is a story that some Boeing engineers kept on their desk a part from a plane that suffered structural failure (and cost the lives of dozens of people) to remind them of the stakes involved if they weren't sufficiently disciplined in their job.

In the realm of software engineering I don't know that we've had a catastrophic failure where the infrastructure costs of repair were in the billions or there was tangible loss of life. The biggest example that comes to mind was the explosion of the Ariane rocket because the software caused the rocket to rotate in the wrong direction so the ground-controllers executed a self-destruct... maybe pieces of a Tesla that crashed while on auto-pilot would be a candidate for physical objects we can hold in our hands to remind us that software bugs can kill?

Re:Computer science is not software engineering by rch on Saturday December 26, 2020 @11:47AM (#25544529)
$1B is a high bar, but there are probably examples. Another comment mentions MCAS, but maybe that's too easily classified as a management failure. Out of curiosity I looked up a couple of other contenders, but neither made the cut.

However, that search took me to an example that I didn't recall, resulting in loss of life. I'll probably reference this story about the Therac-25 in the future as it hits on a number of clear software engineering failures:

-- https://www.bugsnag.com/blog/bug-day-race-condition-therac-2...

Re:Computer science is not software engineering by imtringued on Saturday December 26, 2020 @06:55PM (#25547480)
>Another comment mentions MCAS, but maybe that's too easily classified as a management failure.

You can also chalk it up as a non software engineering failure because the sensor hardware is what failed first.

It's not very clear cut.

Re:Computer science is not software engineering by pbourke on Saturday December 26, 2020 @01:15PM (#25545210)
> In the realm of software engineering I don't know that we've had a catastrophic failure where the infrastructure costs of repair were in the billions or there was tangible loss of life.

The multi-day 2003 blackout in the Northeast US states and Ontario, Canada qualifies in terms of impact (many billions of $). It was a systemic flaw with a software bug as a proximate cause. I think most major failures with high impact in a software-intensive system will sort of look similar: a software fault that cascades to the real world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003

Other examples might be the various outages in airline reservation systems.

If you’re interested in this kind of thing, the archives of the Usenet newsgroup comp.risks are interesting (not sure if it’s still active).

Re:Computer science is not software engineering by jacksonkmarley on Saturday December 26, 2020 @11:18AM (#25544304)
Does Boeing's MCAS not meet your definition of 'software'?